Madras High Court
National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Parthiban on 5 September, 2014
Author: R.Subbiah
Bench: R.Subbiah
IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED 05.09.2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH C.M.A.No.2518 of 2014 & M.P.No.1 of 2014 National Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office Perundurai Road Erode .. Appellant Vs. 1.Parthiban 2.Pavaayee 3.Jagannathan .. Respondents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the judgment and decree dated 12.12.2011 made in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.84 of 2009 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sankagiri (Subordinate Court, Sankagiri) For Appellant : Mr.S.Vadivel For Respondents : Mr.C.Kulanthaivel ----- JUDGMENT
This appeal has been filed questioning the finding rendered by the Tribunal in fixing the liability on the part of the appellant Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount in and by award dated 12.12.2011 made in M.C.O.P.No.84 of 2009.
2. The brief facts in nut-shell is as follows:
Respondents 1 and 2 in the appeal are the son and mother of the deceased. It the case of the respondents / claimants before the Tribunal that on 28.11.2008, while the deceased was proceeding in a two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-34-H-4062, an ambassador car bearing Registration No.TMT-1035 belonging to the third respondent in the appeal and insured with the appellant Insurance Company came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the two wheeler and thus, caused the accident. Hence, the respondents have made a claim for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation.
3. The case of the respondent/claimant was resisted by the Insurance Company by taking a defence that the driver of the insured vehicle did not have a valid driving licence to drive the vehicle and he was under the influence of alcohol and hence, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation amount.
4. In order to prove the claim on the side of the respondents / claimants, son of the deceased, namely first respondent was examined as PW1, besides examining one Kannan as PW2, and marked 15 documents as Exs.P1 to P15. On the side of the respondents, two witnesses were examined as Rws 1 and 2 and marked two documents as Exs.R1 and R2.
5. The Tribunal, after analysing the entire evidence, has come to the conclusion that the accident is the result of rash and negligent driving of the car by its driver and by coming to such a conclusion, directed the Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount to the respondents /claimants and permitted them to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. Aggrieved over the same, the present appeal has been filed.
6. It is the main submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that at the time of the accident, the driver of the Ambassador Car did not have a valid driving licence and he was also under the influence of alcohol. The police has filed the charge sheet as against the driver of the Ambassador car for offences under Section 3 r/w.181 of the Motor Vehicles Act for driving the car without the Driving licence and under Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act for driving the vehicle under the influence of alcohol. Hence, according to the learned counsel, the appellant-Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation amount and the Tribunal ought to have totally exonerated the Insurance Company from paying the compensation amount instead of directing the Insurance Company to pay the compensation and then to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. Thus, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that by setting aside the said finding, the Insurance Company has to be exonerated from its liability.
7. In my considered opinion, the deceased is a third party. As per the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in 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 parties. At the best, they can have a liberty to recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle after paying the same to the claimant. Hence, I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal. Hence, I am not inclined to admit this appeal.
In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. The appellant Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire award with proportionate interest and cost, less the amount already deposited, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the respondents 1 and 2 are permitted to withdraw the amount on due application. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
05.09.2014 Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No gpa To Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Subordinate Court, Sankagiri R.SUBBIAH,J.
gpa C.M.A.No.2518 of 2014 & M.P.No.1 of 2014 05.09.2014