The Divisional Manager Vs Manjula — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2025)

The Divisional Manager Vs Manjula — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal dismissed; appellant Insurance Company directed to deposit the entire award amount with accrued interest and costs to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.367 of 2017 (less amounts already deposited, if any) within four weeks, and to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle; on deposit, claimants may withdraw per the Tribunal's apportionment; connected Miscellaneous Petition dismissed; parties to bear their own costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Tribunal erred in holding that the two wheeler rider alone was at fault for the accident, the Insurer contending that the complaint version (deceased crossing the road) conflicted with P.W.2's evidence (deceased standing on the left side of the road). +2 more

Court's answer

The Tribunal's finding that the two wheeler rider alone was responsible for the accident is upheld: the Insurer took no negligence defence in its counter statement, did not examine the rider or any occurrence witness, and adduced no contra evidence, leaving P.W.2's occurrence testimony uncontradicted.

Ratio / Principle

The Insurer's plea of absence of nexus between injuries and death is rejected: the stand was never taken in the counter statement or before the trial Court; the injured underwent surgery and inpatient treatment till discharge on 18.06.2015 with only an 8-day gap before death; pre-existing diabetes and hypertension cannot negate the causal link without concrete evidence, and the plea cannot be considered without prior pleadings or evidence.

Key takeaways

Since the offending two wheeler was owned by the first respondent and insured with the second respondent, the policy was in force on the date of accident, and the rider was a minor lacking a valid driving licence, the Tribunal's application of the pay-and-recovery doctrine is justified; the Insurer is not absolved of liability, consistent with the Division Bench decision in IFFCO-TOKIO v. Kalaiselvi where insurers of both motorcycles were directed to pay and recover from the owners.ratio¶17
The Insurance Company having not challenged the quantum of compensation, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is held to be devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.ratio¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Madurai Bench), single Judge (K. Murali Shankar, J.), 04.09.2025 — Insurer's C.M.A.(MD) against an MCOP award applying 'pay and recovery' dismissed. A pedestrian (Mayandi) knocked down on 11.06.2015 by a two wheeler ridden rashly by the owner's minor son without a valid licence died on 27.06.2015; the Tribunal awarded c. Rs.9.44 lakhs with 7.5% interest to his wife and sons, directing the Insurer to pay and recover from the owner. Held: (i) the finding that the rider alone was negligent stands — the Insurer pleaded no negligence defence, examined neither the rider nor any witness, and led no contra evidence; (ii) the plea of no nexus between injuries and death fails — never pleaded below, the injured underwent surgery and inpatient treatment till discharge with only an 8-day gap to death, and pre-existing diabetes/hypertension cannot break causation without concrete evidence; (iii) with the policy in force, pay and recovery is justified despite the minor/unlicensed rider, in line with the Division Bench ruling in IFFCO-TOKIO v. Kalaiselvi; the three exonerations cited by the Insurer (Tripurari Mandal; M.Ananthi; Irfan) involved the deceased/insured/claimant being the tortfeasor himself. Quantum was unchallenged. Insurer to deposit the award with interest and costs within four weeks and recover from the owner; connected MP dismissed; parties to bear own costs.

Issues for consideration

3 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the Tribunal erred in holding that the two wheeler rider alone was at fault for the accident, the Insurer contending that the complaint version (deceased crossing the road) conflicted with P.W.2's evidence (deceased standing on the left side of the road).¶7
The court held
The Tribunal's finding that the two wheeler rider alone was responsible for the accident is upheld: the Insurer took no negligence defence in its counter statement, did not examine the rider or any occurrence witness, and adduced no contra evidence, leaving P.W.2's occurrence testimony uncontradicted.ratio¶8
2.
Whether, in the absence of proof of continuous treatment after discharge from Aristo Hospital on 18.06.2015 and of a nexus between the injuries and the death, the claimants are entitled to compensation for loss of dependency.¶9
The court held
The Insurer's plea of absence of nexus between injuries and death is rejected: the stand was never taken in the counter statement or before the trial Court; the injured underwent surgery and inpatient treatment till discharge on 18.06.2015 with only an 8-day gap before death; pre-existing diabetes and hypertension cannot negate the causal link without concrete evidence, and the plea cannot be considered without prior pleadings or evidence.ratio¶10
3.
Whether, given that the rider was a minor without a valid driving licence (violating policy/statutory conditions), the Tribunal rightly applied the doctrine of pay and recovery instead of absolving the Insurer of liability entirely.¶11
The court held
Since the offending two wheeler was owned by the first respondent and insured with the second respondent, the policy was in force on the date of accident, and the rider was a minor lacking a valid driving licence, the Tribunal's application of the pay-and-recovery doctrine is justified; the Insurer is not absolved of liability, consistent with the Division Bench decision in IFFCO-TOKIO v. Kalaiselvi where insurers of both motorcycles were directed to pay and recover from the owners.ratio¶17