Saroja v. Pandiaraja
Case brief
What is this about?
An appeal against an order awarding compensation. The High Court held that the insurer must pay the award amount first and recover it later from the vehicle owner, distinguishing between lack of license and lack of commercial vehicle badge.
What did the court decide?
The Third Respondent (Insurance Company) directed to pay Rs. 1,16,598/- plus interest to claimants and recover the same from the First Respondent.
What the court decided
C.M.A.(MD)No.25 of 2013
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated: 09.01.2024
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P. DHANABAL
C.M.A.(MD)No.25 of 2013
- Saroja
- Sundaresan 3. Indira
- Selvarani ..Appellants/Claimants .vs.
- Pandiaraja 2. The Divisional Manager Oriental Insurance Company P.K.S.A. Arumugam Road, Sivakasi, Virudhunagar District .. Respondents/ Respondents
Prayer : This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to call for the records from the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(Sub Court) Sivakasi dated 14.12.2011 made in M.C.O.P.No.27 of 2007 and enhance the award of compensation amount by allowing this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the insurance company is liable to pay compensation even when the driver lacked a valid badge to ply a commercial load auto?
Whether the High Court should interfere with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal?
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Saroja and others
- respondent
Pandiaraja
- respondent
Oriental Insurance Company P.K.S.A. Arumugam Road, Sivakasi
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court