Madras High Court
The Divisional Manager vs Muthukrishnan on 11 August, 2014
Author: R.Subbiah
Bench: R.Subbiah
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 11.08.2014
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH
C.M.A.Nos.2195 and 2196 of 2014
and M.P.Nos.1 and 1 of 2014
CMA No.2195 of 2014
The Divisional Manager,
National Insurance Company Ltd.,
Division Office, J.N Street,
Pondicherry 605 001 ... Appellant
vs.
1.Muthukrishnan
2.Kalyani
3.P.Antony Vijay
4.S.Karthikeyan ... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the award and decree dated 18.04.2013 made in MCOP No.156 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (1st Additional District & Sessions Judge), Cuddalore.
CMA No.2196 of 2014
The Divisional Manager,
National Insurance Company Ltd.,
Division Office, J.N Street,
Pondicherry 605 001 ... Appellant
vs.
1. Sivalingam
2. P.Antony Vijay
3. S.Karthikeyan ... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the award and decree dated 18.04.2013 made in MCOP No.157 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (1st Additional District & Sessions Judge), Cuddalore.
For appellant : Mr.S.Vadivel
COMMON JUDGMENT
Both the appeals have been filed by the Insurance company, against the common award dated 18.04.2013 made in MCOP Nos.156 and 157 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (1st Additional District & Sessions Judge), Cuddalore.
2. When the appeals came up for admission today, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that these appeals have been filed challenging the finding rendered by the tribunal in fixing the liability on the part of the appellant insurance company to pay the compensation amount and then to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle.
3. The respondents 1 and 2 in CMA No.2195 of 2014 are the claimants before the tribunal in MCOP No.156 of 2010. They are the parents of the deceased Sivakumar, who had died in a road accident that had occurred on 20.10.2009, involving a vehicle insured with the appellant Insurance Company. The 1st respondent in CMA No.2196 of 2014, is the claimant before the tribunal in MCOP No.157 of 2010. He has filed a claim petition for the injuries sustained by him in the same accident.
4. It is the case of the respondents/claimants that on the date of the accident viz., on 20.10.2009, while the deceased Sivakumar was riding a two wheeler, a car bearing Regn.No.TN72D1000, came in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. A case in crime No.330 of 2009 has been registered against the driver of the offending vehicle, viz., car bearing Regn.No.TN72D1000, owned by one Karthikeyan (one of the respondent in both the appeals) and insured with the appellant insurance company, for offence under Sections 304(A) on the file of the Station House Officer, Pudhuchathiram Police Station.
5. The insurance company resisted the claim petitions filed by the respondents/claimants, stating that at the time of accident, the driver of the insured vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving licence and therefore, there is a violation to the conditions of the policy. Thus, they denied their liability to pay compensation to the injured/legal representatives of the deceased.
6. Before the claims tribunal, common evidence was adduced in both the claims petitions and a joint trial was held. On the side of the respondents/claimants, two witnesses viz., Pws.1 and 2 have been examined and documents viz. Exs.P1 to P18, were marked. On the side of the Insurance Company three witnesses viz., Pws.1 to 3, have been examined and documents viz., Exs.R1 to R5, were marked.
7. The claims tribunal on evaluation of pleadings and evidence held that the driver of the car bearing Regn.No.TN72D1000, owned by one Karthikeyan (one of the respondent in both the appeals) and insured with the appellant insurance company, was negligent in causing the accident and fastened liability on the appellant Insurance company to pay compensation to the injured / legal representatives of the deceased and has also granted liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. On the aspect of quantum, the claims tribunal awarded Rs.8,09,000/- to the legal representatives of the deceased and Rs.10,000/- to the injured/claimant, with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum.
8. Aggrieved over the finding in fixing the liability on the insurance company, both the appeals have been filed. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company is that, when the driver of the insured vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving licence and when the Insurance company has adduced sufficient oral and documentary evidence, the claims tribunal ought to have totally exonerated the insurance company, for breach of policy conditions and held the owner of the vehicle fully liable to pay the compensation.
9. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company and perused the materials available on record.
10. Though, the learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company, contended that since there is a violation in condition of policy by the driver of the car, the tribunal ought to have exonerated the Insurance company totally from paying compensation, in my considered opinion, even if the insurance company proves its defence that the driver of the car did not have valid driving licence at the time of accident, the Insurance Company cannot be exonerated from paying compensation amount to the claimant. At the maximum, this Court can give liberty to the insurance company to recover the compensation amount from the owner of the vehicle after paying the same to the victim / claimant, since as per the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.Iyyapan vs. United India Insurance Co.Ltd, reported in (2013) 7 Supreme Court Cases 62, non-possession of the valid driving licence cannot be a ground for the insurance company to disown its liability to pay the compensation to third party. In view of the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision cited supra, this Court is not inclined to set aside the finding of the Tribunal, since the tribunal has already given liberty to the appellant Insurance company to recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle.
11. I find no infirmity in the common award passed by the Tribunal. Hence, both the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
12. Consequent to the dismissal of the appeals, the appellant Insurance Company is directed to deposit the respective entire award amount with proportionate accrued interest and costs, less the statutory deposit, to the credit of MCOP Nos.156 and 157 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (1st Additional District & Sessions Judge), Cuddalore, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if not deposited earlier. On such deposit, the respondents 1 and 2/claimants in CMA No.2195/14, are permitted to withdraw their share in the award amount with proportionate accrued interest and costs, as apportioned by the tribunal, by making necessary applications. The 1st respondent/claimant in CMA No.2196/14, is permitted to withdraw the entire award amount with proportionate accrued interest and costs, by making necessary applications.
11.08.2014 Index:Yes/No Internet:yes/No ars To
1.The 1st Additional District & Sessions Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Cuddalore.
2.The Record Keeper, V.R. Records, High Court of Madras.
R.SUBBIAH, J ars C.M.A.Nos.2195 and 2196 of 2014 11.08.2014