Allowed

T.Roselind Mary Pushpam v. Amalorpava Mary

Madras HC19 Dec 2024CRP/5028/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge civil revision petition to set aside an order denying deletion of a petitioner from party array in a motor accident claim. Court held valid transfer evidence invokes Section 157 Motor Vehicles Act, allowing deletion despite insurance policy name.

What did the court decide?

Civil revision allowed, order dated 12.12.2023 in M.P.No.2 of 2022 set aside, petitioner (civil revision petitioner) deleted from party array.

T.Roselind Mary Pushpam Vs Amalorpava Mary — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

C.R.P.(PD).No.5028 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 19.12.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN

¶6

C.R.P.(PD).No.5028 of 2024 and C.M.P.No.28226 of 2024

¶7

T.Roselind Mary Pushpam

.. Petitioner

Vs.

1.Amalorpava Mary

2.Minor. B.Theo Francis

¶12

(Minor 2^nd respondent represented by natural guardian and next friend, his mother Amalorpava Mary, 1^st respondent)

¶13

3.The IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd., Motor Third Party Claim Cell, No.128, 4^th Floor, Abibullah Road, T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017.

¶14

4.Maria Sornam

¶15

.. Respondents

¶16

Prayer : This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the fair and decreetal order passed in M.P.No.2 of 2022 in M.C.O.P.No.6555 of 2019, on the file of the Chief

¶17

1/9

¶18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶19

C.R.P.(PD).No.5028 of 2024

¶20

Small Causes Court / MACT at Chennai, dated 12.12.2023 by allowing the present civil revision petition.

¶21

For Petitioner : Mr.Ma.P.Thangavel For RR 1 & 2 : Mr.K.Varadha Kamaraj For R3 : Mr.J.Michael Visuvasam

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

This civil revision petition challenges the order passed by the learned

¶24

Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Chennai, dated 12.12.2023 in M.P.No.2 of 2022 in M.C.O.P.No.6555 of 2019.

¶25

2.M.C.O.P.No.6555 of 2019 has been presented on account of the

¶26

death of one J.Benjamin Prabu on 08.11.2019.

¶27

3.The claimants contended that the deceased was riding a motorcycle

¶28

when a vehicle that was owned by the 1^st respondent / civil revision petitioner, insured by the 2^nd respondent, was driven in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the vehicle in which the deceased was travelling.

¶29

2/9

¶30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶31

C.R.P.(PD).No.5028 of 2024

¶32

4.The case of the 1^st respondent is that she had transferred the vehicle to one M/s.Popular Vehicles and Services, Chennai, months before the accident on 26.07.2019. She also obtained a sale receipt and delivery receipt on the very same day. Subsequently, the vehicle was sold by M/s.Popular Vehicles, Chennai, in favour of the 4^th respondent in the M.C.O.P., viz., Yogeshwaran.

¶33

5.As the motor vehicle had already been sold, the 1^st respondent contended that she is neither a proper nor necessary party to the proceedings. Hence, she took out an application in M.P.No.2 of 2022 to have her name removed from the array of parties.

¶34

6.The claimants filed a counter stating that the vehicle was insured by the 2^nd respondent – Insurance Company issued in the name of the civil revision petitioner and therefore, she cannot be removed from the array of parties.

¶35

3/9

¶36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶37

C.R.P.(PD).No.5028 of 2024

¶38

7.The Insurance Company also filed a counter opposing the

¶39

application.

¶40

8.Before the learned Trial Judge, the sale receipt, delivery receipt, purchase agreement and declaration were produced as exhibits. Additional proof of transfer in the Registration Certificate (RC) Book was also demonstrated by filing Ex.P3.

¶41

9.The learned Trial Judge, after a perusal of the affidavit and counter affidavit, came to a conclusion that the petition to delete does not deserve consideration and dismissed the same. Hence, the revision.

¶42

10.When the matter came before this Court, I requested Mr.Ma.P.Thangavel to serve papers on the counsel who represented the Insurance Company as well as the claimants in the Court below. Pursuant to the notice, Mr.K.Varadha Kamaraj and Mr.J.Michael Visuvasam have appeared before the Court.

¶43

4/9

¶44

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶45

C.R.P.(PD).No.5028 of 2024

¶46

11.I heard the parties.

¶47

12.An owner would be liable even if the vehicle has been transferred, if

¶48

the records reveal that he continues to be the owner of the vehicle. Insofar as this case is concerned, the petitioner has proved through Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 that she had sold the vehicle to M/s.Popular Vehicles and Services, Padi, Chennai and they had in turn sold the vehicle to the impleaded 4^th respondent in the M.C.O.P. This establishes that on the date of the accident, not only had the petitioner validly transferred the vehicle in favour of an agency, but the agency had also transferred it in favour of the 4^th respondent.

¶49

13.The apprehension that has been expressed by the claimants that the insurance policy was issued in the name of the civil revision petitioner and therefore, she cannot proceed as against the 4^th respondent is unfounded. This is on account of Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

¶50

14.In terms of the said provision, in case the certificate of insurance is issued and subsequently, if the vehicle is transferred in favour of an other

¶51

5/9

¶52

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶53

C.R.P.(PD).No.5028 of 2024

¶54

person, then the Policy is deemed to have been taken in favour of the person in whose name the vehicle has been transferred. Since, the transfer has been proved and since there is deeming clause covering the 4^th respondent, the presence of the civil revision petitioner is unnecessary.

¶55

15.Consequently, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order dated 12.12.2023 in M.P.No.2 of 2022 in M.C.O.P.No.6555 of 2019 is set aside. The civil revision petitioner shall be deleted from the array of parties. At this stage, Mr.J.Michael Visuvasam states that the main proceeding itself is posted for judgment on 02.01.2025. Mr.Ma.P.Thangavel is permitted to file a memo indicating to the Trial Court that the revision has been allowed and the name of the 1^st respondent in the M.C.O.P.No.6555 of 2019 stands deleted. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.

19.12.2024

krk

Index : Yes / No 6/9

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶60

C.R.P.(PD).No.5028 of 2024

¶61

Internet : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No

¶62

To The Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chennai.

¶63

7/9

¶64

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶65

C.R.P.(PD).No.5028 of 2024

¶66

V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.

¶67

krk

¶68

C.R.P.(PD).No.5028 of 2024

¶69

8/9

¶70

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶71

C.R.P.(PD).No.5028 of 2024

¶72

19.12.2024

¶73

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶74

9/9

T.Roselind Mary Pushpam v. Amalorpava Mary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Roselind Mary Pushpam v. Amalorpava Mary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A. Govinthan Vs S. Gayathri

J.Viswarajan Vs M.B.Anuradha

Vijayakumar Vs S.Vinodhalatha

Palaniammal Vs Rangammal

Sri Venkitammal Trust Vs S.Shanmugam

S.Srimathi @ Gayathri Vs Nil