Madras High Court
The Branch Manager vs Rajendra @ Rajendran on 3 January, 2025
Author: M.Dhandapani
Bench: M.Dhandapani
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 03.01.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
C.M.A. NO.1978 of 2021
The Branch Manager,
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Branch Office, Shivamangala Building,
Channagiri Road,
Bhadravathi-577 301. .. Appellant
- Vs -
1. Rajendra @ Rajendran
2. R.Subramani .. Respondents
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act
against the order and decreetal order dated 25.02.2020made in M.C.O.P.
No.123of 2018on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Sub
Judge, Krishnagiri.
For Appellant : Mr. S.Arunkumar
For Respondents : No appearance
JUDGMENT
The present appeal is filed against the order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Sub Judge, Krishnagiri, in M.C.OP. No.123/2018 in and by which the Tribunal directed the appellant to pay compensation to the claimants and recover the same from the owner of the 1/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 03:50:50 pm ) vehicle. Assailing the said order, by contending that the any person travelling in a private vehicle would not be covered under an Act Only Policy, the present appeal has been filed by the insurance company.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as claimant, insurance company and the owner of the vehicle will be referred to as the 2nd respondent, as arrayed in the present appeal.
3. The short facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are as under :-
On 26.12.2012, at about 3.20 P.M, when the claimant was travelling in the Mahindra Jeep bearing Reg. No.CTQ 6090 belonging to the second respondent and insured with the appellant herein in Tiruvannamalai to Manaloorpettai Road towards Manaloorpettai, the second respondent driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, near Solaikottai the car dashed against a Tamarind tree in which the claimant suffered grievous injuries including fracture to the right femur and underwent operation. Therefore, the claim petition was preferred before the Tribunal seeking compensation to be paid jointly and severally by the insurance company and the 2nd respondent.
4. The main ground canvassed by the insurance company before the 2/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 03:50:50 pm ) Tribunal to extricate itself from the liability to pay the compensation is that the policy taken by the 2nd respondent was a liability only policy and that the 2nd respondent, who is the owner of the jeep had not paid any additional premium to cover the risk of the passengers/occupants travelling in the jeep and, therefore, the claimant is not entitled to any compensation at the hands of the insurance company, as the insurance company is not vicariously liable to indemnify the insured under an Act Only Policy with regard to the occupants who are inside the vehicle as such of those persons, who are travelling in the vehicle would not be covered under the Act Only Policy in the absence of additional premium being paid.
5. Before the Tribunal, the claimant examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-5. On the side of the insurance company, R.W.1 was examined and the copy of the policy was marked as Ex.R-1. On the basis of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2,93,900/- to the first respondent/claimantby directing the insurance company to pay the compensation and thereafter, recover the same from the 2nd respondent, viz., the owner of the vehicle. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal has been filed.
3/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 03:50:50 pm )
6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that when the Act Only Policy did not cover liability of passengers in a private vehicle as it is not a statutory compulsion u/s 147 of the Act, no liability can be fastened on the appellant to indemnify the claimant. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that when there is additional premium paid by the owner for the vehicle for coverage of the passenger in a private car, the passenger cannot be brought within the ambit of “third party”, and the direction of the Tribunal directing the appellant to pay the compensation and, thereafter, to recover the same from the 2nd respondent is wholly misconceived. Further, it is the submission of the learned counsel that the finding that the claimant was employed under the 2nd respondent is wholly erroneous as is evident from the averments made by the claimant and even otherwise, the authorised representative of the owner in the private vehicle is distinguishable from third party as provided for u/s 147 (1)(b) (i) of the Act, 1988 and, therefore, the finding rendered by the Tribunal is erroneous and deserves to be set aside.
7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the claimant submitted that the policy issued by the insurance company has to specifically state that the occupant of a private car is excluded from the purview of “third party”, which is to be mentioned in the Terms and Conditions of the insurance policy and the 4/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 03:50:50 pm ) Proposal-cum-Declaration and further submitted that even if the policy specifically excludes the occupant from being brought within the ambit of third party, the said condition runs contrary to the statutory provision and, thereby, the said condition is wholly illegal. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that the terms and conditions of the policy and the proposal-cum- declaration having not been marked before the Tribunal, the same cannot be the basis to negate the claim of the claimant, which has been properly appreciated by the Tribunal.
8. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that in the absence of specific exclusion of the occupant of the jeep from the purview of “Third Party” in the terms and conditions, the claimant would squarely fall within the definition of “third party” as defined under Section 145 (g) of the Act, 1988.
9. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that the policy even if it is an “Act only Policy”, falls u/s 147 (1) (b) of the Act, and in the light of the definition found u/s 145 (g), the claim made by the occupants of the private car is maintainable and in this regard, reliance is placed on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. – Vs – V.S.R.Kumaresan (1989 SCC OnLine Mad 201) and Natarajan – Vs – D.Chandrasekaran (2004 (1) CTC 284).
5/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 03:50:50 pm )
10. Learned counsel for the claimant further submitted that the definition of “Third Party”, as provided for u/s 145 (g) is an inclusive definition, as per which, the Government is brought as a specific inclusion. This clearly shows that the intention of the Parliament is not to exclude any class of persons from the purview of the benevolent legislation. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that the word “includes” used in Section 145
(g) enlarges the scope and meaning of the expression “third party” so as to comprehend “third party” not only such things as they signify according to their natural import but also those things which the clause declares that they shall include
11. It is therefore the submission of the learned counsel that a “third party”to the exclusion of the insurer and the insured would include all other persons, includingthe occupant of the car or a person walking on the road and all such persons falling within the scope would be “third party” and would be entitled to compensation from the insurance company, even on an Act Only Policy.
12. Learned counsel for the claimant further submitted that whether a passenger travelling in a private car would be covered by third party risk or not 6/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 03:50:50 pm ) was considered by the Apex Court in the decision in Bhagyalakshmi – Vs – United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2009 (7) SCC 148) and in view of the conflicting decisions of the Apex Court as to whether the passenger of a car would not be a “third party” or not, the matter was referred to a Larger Bench to decide the issue, which has been answered in favour of the appellant therein. Therefore, the said decision is squarely applicable to the present case as well.
13. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the insurance company in Asha Rani, Tilak Singh, K.V.Sudhakaran and Balakrishnan case (supra) have decided the issue only as to whether pillion rider of the two wheeler or occupant of a private car are covered under an “Act Only Policy”; rather the issue as to whether pillion rider of a two wheeler or occupant of a private car would fall within the ambit of “third party”in line with Section 145 (g) of the Act has not been decided. Therefore, the said decisions would not in any way help the appellant to further their case.
14. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that Section 145
(g) is an inclusive definition and interpretation of “third party” appearing in the said provision was not brought to the attention of the Apex Court and in the absence of any authoritative pronouncement by the Apex Court, the decisions 7/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 03:50:50 pm ) in Kumaresan, Chandrasekaran case and also in Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. – Vs – A.Meenakshi (2009 (1) TN MAC 249 (DB) and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. – Vs – Murugan (2017 (1) TN MAC
184)should form the basis of this Court in deciding the issue and, accordingly, the answer has to be necessarily given in favour of the claimant.
15. Learned counsel for the claimant further submitted that though the earlier Division Benches in Kumaresan, Chandrasekaran, Meenakshi and Murugan case have taken a view that the “third party” would include even an occupant of the car as also a pillion rider, however, the later Division Benches in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. – Vs – N.Krishnasamy (2015 (1) TN MAC 19) and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. – Vs – Meenakshi (2023 SCC OnLine Mad 133), have held that the occupant of the car and pillion rider of two wheeler would not be third parties so as to claim compensation in the absence of payment of additional premium under comprehensive/package policy. However, the latter decisions have not taken into consideration the former decisions, which decisions are in line with Section 145 (g) of the Act. Therefore, alternatively it is pleaded that even if this Court is not inclined to accept the contentions raised on behalf of the claimant, this Court, as a matter of judicial discipline, shall refer the matter to be placed before a Larger Bench 8/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 03:50:50 pm ) to settle the conflict in the decisions.
16. This Court gave its anxious consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record and also the various decisions, which have been placed before this Court for consideration.
17. Exhaustive arguments were advanced on behalf of the claimant to persuade this Court to come to the conclusion that Section 145 (g), which defines “third party” to include the Government and is an inclusive definition, with a wide sweep and, therefore, any person, other than the first and second party, viz., the insurer and the insured would fall within the ambit of “third party” defined u/s 145 (g), and the occupant of the private vehicle, therefore,would fall within the scope of “any person” appearing in Section 147 (1)(b)(i) of the Act, 1988 over and above the owner or his authorised representative,and, therefore, the claimant should be given the benefit of Section 145 (g) and, thereby, the insurance company would be jointly and severally liable, along with the 2nd respondent, to pay compensation to the claimant in terms of Section 147 and 149 of the Act.
9/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 03:50:50 pm )
18. In the above scenario, the question that falls before this Court for consideration is – Whether the term “any person” found in Section 147 (1)(b)(i)of Act, 1988 would fall within the definition of “third party” as found in Section 145 (g) so as to include the occupant of a private vehicle, who is a gratuitous passenger covered by the terms of an Act Only Policy, irrespective of the fact that no additional premium is paid towards such person for extending the coverage under the Act Only Policy.
19. The question, as coined above, therefore pertains only to a private vehicle, which is used for personal purposes by the owner of the vehicle and is not a vehicle, which is used for the transportation of goods or a passenger vehicle, which will fall within the realm of public service vehicle, in which passengers are carried for hire or reward. Therefore, the person travelling in the transport vehicle and public service vehicle would be gratuitous passengers, as it is a voluntary act of the person travelling in the vehicle and that too, for hire or reward and, therefore, it will attract only the rigour of Section 147 (1)(b)(ii).
10/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 03:50:50 pm )
20. Two types of policies are normally issued by the insurance companies on the basis of the approval by the Insurance Regulatory Development Authority with tweaks as is found beneficial between the parties to the insurance, viz., the insurer and the insured. One of the type of policy is generally called the “Act Only Policy”and the other policy is a Comprehensive Policy which is normally called a “Package Policy”. As denoted by the term Package Policy or Comprehensive Policy, the policy covers all the persons who are injured in the accident as also the instances, viz., death of a person or bodily injury to any passenger and damage to property of a third party, in respect of private vehicle, and it includes the owner of the goods or his authorised representative insofar as transport vehicle. Therefore, where the policy covers the owner of the goods or his authorised representative, it is to be presumed that the vehicle involved is a goods vehicle. Therefore, in respect of an occupant of a private vehicle, which is covered by a Package Policy, the policy covers indemnification by the insurer against all claims made by all the parties beyond the first and second party, viz., insurer and the insured. However, in respect of an Act Only Policy, the liability of the insurer to indemnify the claimant is only with reference to third parties, who are outside the vehicle and not with reference to the occupants of the private vehicle, as additional premium is required to be paid to cover the occupants of the private vehicle. In 11/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 03:50:50 pm ) this scenario, it is the stand of the insurance company that where no additional premium is paid in respect of the occupants of a private vehicle in respect of an Act Only Policy, no liability stands fastened on the insurer to indemnify the occupants of the private vehicle involved in an accident.
21. This has been in vogue and has been followed and the Apex Court in very many decisions has reiterated the same. However, the issue that is sought to be canvassed is with regard to the interpretation to be given to the definition of “third party” as is found in Section 145 (g) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘Act, 1988’), which, according to the claimant, would also take the occupant of the private vehicle within the fold of third party and the occupant of the private vehicle would stand covered under the definition of “third party”.
22. On the above scale, this Court would now proceed to analyse the intention of the Parliament in defining “third party” as given in Section 145
(g), which, prior to its amendment in the year 2019,stood as under :-
“145. Definitions…..
(g) “third party” includes the Government.”
23. The aforesaid Section 145 (g) is nestled in Chapter IX. By way of 12/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 03:50:50 pm ) Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019, which came into force on 9.8.2019, the definition of “third party” was amended under sub-section (i) of Section 145, as hereunder :-
“145. Definitions…..
(i) “third party” includes the Government, the driver and any other co-worker on a transport vehicle.”
24. On and from the amendment in the year 2019, the entities that would fall within the ambit of third party has been spelt out. The necessity for bringing in the driver and co-worker in a transport vehicle within the meaning of “third party” is only with regard to covering them for the purpose of compensation, which, if not included, would result in the said persons, being not considered for compensation as transport vehicle is considered a separate class of vehicle. Insofar as goods vehicle, Section 147 (1)(b)(i) takes into account the owner of the goods and authorised representative and insofar as public service vehicle, passenger alone is taken into account. Therefore, coverage extends to three types of vehicles, viz., i) a private vehicle, ii) goods transport vehicle and iii) public service vehicle. Only for the said purpose, the driver and co-worker in a transport vehicle, which is a public service vehicle, but used in the transportation of goods, have been brought within the ambit of “third party”. However, even in the said amendment, there is a specific 13/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 03:50:50 pm ) mention only about transport vehicle and it does not in any manner speak about private vehicles and whether the occupant of a private vehicle would be a third party. Only on that basis, the above arguments have been canvassed by either side by laying emphasis on the various provisions of the Act, 1988.
25. From the above, it is clear that the occupant of a private vehicle, though would be deemed to be a third party, but in the absence of specific inclusion of the occupant of the private vehicle by the contracting parties by paying additional premium for the purpose of covering the liability of the insured, the liability would not stand transposed on the insurer on behalf of the owner of the vehicle. In fine, additional premium over and above the minimum prescribed should have been paid for indemnifying the claim of a passenger of a private vehicle. Therefore, in respect of an Act Only Policy, which is the minimum prescribed u/s 147, third party would necessarily be taken to mean a person outside the vehicle and would not include the occupant of the private vehicle; however, if additional premium is paid enabling the said cover in the contract of insurance, then the occupant of the vehicle would stand covered under the Third Party Risk. Therefore, beyond the minimum prescription u/s 147 of Act, 1988, a wider policy could be taken for covering the occupant of the private vehicle, in which case the occupant would also fall within the ambit 14/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 03:50:50 pm ) of third party, by paying additional premium as agreed between the first and second party, viz., the insurer and the insured for the purpose of claiming compensation.
26. When the Three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Amrit Lal Sood has clearly spelt out the situations in which the insurance company would be liable to indemnify the insured and in respect of an Act Only Policy, and has specifically held that in the absence of a wider cover having been accepted between the contracting parties, the liability of the insurance company would be only to the extent of the coverage agreed between the contracting parties, the Division Bench, in Chandrasekaran case (supra), without taking into consideration that the policy in Amrit Lal Sood is a comprehensive policy, had imported the ratio laid down in the said decision erroneously to the case before it and had come to the conclusion that the said decision is squarely applicable even with regard to an Act Only Policy, by holding that the intent of the Legislature is writ large in the omission of clause (ii) of proviso to Section 95 95 (1)(b) in Section 147 of Act, 1988, notwithstanding the fact that in Amrit Lal Sood, the Apex Court had clearly negated that the occupant of the private vehicle would not be entitled to compensation in the absence of any additional premium being paid. Therefore, with great respect, the interpretation has been 15/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 03:50:50 pm ) erroneously arrived at by the decision of the Division Bench with regard to Act Only Policy by taking cue from the decision in Amrit Lal Sood, though the said case stood on a different footing, viz., which was a case covered by a Comprehensive Policy.
27. Therefore, the mere inclusion of all the persons within the ambit of third party as defined u/s 145 (g) of Act, 1988 would not enure to the benefit of the claimant, who is an occupant of the private vehicle, as the liability to compensate the occupant of the private vehicle for any death or bodily injury will flow not from the requirements of Section 147 but in relation to the terms agreed between the insurance company and the owner of the vehicle.
28. From the above discussion, this Court holds that “any person” as found in Section 147 (1)(b)(i) would fall within the definition of “third party” as defined u/s 145 (g) of Act, 1988 and all persons irrespective of their position, would be deemed to be “third party” but the indemnification of the insurer towards payment of compensation would flow only from Section 147 (5), which would be based on the terms of the contract entered into between the contracting parties, viz., the insurer and the insured and, therefore, reading Section 147 (1)(b)(i) and 147 (5) together, the occupant of the private vehicle would not be entitled for claiming compensation unless the terms of the policy 16/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 03:50:50 pm ) spells out the intention of the contracting parties towards the occupant, by means of wider coverage under the policy and not otherwise, which alone would have been the intent of the Legislature while enacting the amendment in the year 1988.
29. The above view of this Court is strengthened on the premise that if not, the necessity of the non obstante clause u/s 147 (5) would not have been required. Both Act, 1939 as well as Act, 1988 has the very same non obstante clause, but only Section 95 (1)(b) and Section 147 (1)(b)(i) have been worded in a different manner, the necessity for which has been explained in the preceding portion of the order. Therefore, all along, the intention of the Legislature was to leave the contracting parties to finalize the terms of the policy between them, while statutorily mandating carrying of a minimum policy, which would take care of the parties outside the vehicle, in the event of the vehicle meeting with an accident.
30. The logic behind the above would have flown from the understanding of the Legislature that the owner of a private vehicle does not normally carry passengers for hire or reward, which is taken care of u/s 147 (1)(b)(ii), but it is restricted to his friends and relatives, who alone would be the occupants of the private vehicle. In such an event, the said persons cannot be 17/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 03:50:50 pm ) construed to be third parties for the purpose of falling within the third party risk coverage and if at all the owner of the vehicle intends to cover such persons, necessarily, a wider cover ought to be taken which would be spelt out in the terms of the policy. Therefore, the Legislature had, in its wisdom, left it to the prudent choice and discretion of the owner of the vehicle to opt for taking a wider cover for the occupants of the car, as also for the owner in addition, by paying a separate premium as addition to the base premium and had not mandated the owner to carry insurance beyond the statutory prescription u/s 147 as has been held in Jayaram Shetty case (supra). Therefore, suffice to say, that if the additional premium is not paid towards coverage for the occupants and owner of the vehicle, in respect of Act Only Policy, the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the occupants of the private vehicle.
31. Now turning to the facts of the case, it is the case of the insurance company that the policy in issue is an Act Only Policy and, therefore, the insurance company is not liable to compensate the claimant for the injuries suffered by him in the accident. It is the further case of the insurance company that when the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation, the question of paying the compensation and recovering the same does not arise.
32. Before proceeding further with the facts of the case and the 18/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 03:50:50 pm ) contentions advanced therein, it would not be out of context for this Court to point out that the order of the Tribunal does not reveal the manner in which it has interpreted an Act Only Policy to be one which would make the insurance company to pay the compensation. Further, this Court is at a loss to understand as to how the order ordering recovery could be passed, when liability has been fastened on the insurance company. Further, what is more intriguing is the fact that on the above set of facts, a finding has been rendered by the Tribunal that the claimant is an employee of the owner of the vehicle, though even in the very case of the claimant, it has been admitted that the claimant is not in any way associated with the owner of the vehicle. Further, the Tribunal has passed the order on the premise that the claimant is an employee under the owner of the vehicle and, therefore, he would be entitled to compensation by invoking Section 147 (1)(b)(i) notwithstanding the fact that the parties have not canvassed employer-employee relationship between the claimant and the owner of the vehicle.
33. A careful perusal of the policy of insurance, more particularly the schedule of premium and the terms on which the first and the second party had agreed with regard to the class of persons to be covered for the purpose of payment of indemnification by the appellant, the schedule of premium shows 19/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 03:50:50 pm ) that while the driver has been indemnified, and be covered under the limits of liability under Section II-I (ii) as shown in the Third Party Premium schedule and so is the personal accident cover for the owner of the vehicle, however, crucially, the personal accident to passenger has not been covered under the policy by paying any additional premium, meaning thereby, there is exclusion with regard to indemnification as regards the occupant of the car other than the driver, which would be to the extent of the limits of liability of Rs.7,50,000/- and personal accident with regard to the owner, who himself when being the driver to the extent of Rs.2,00,000/-. From the above, it transpires that no additional premium having been paid towards indemnification of the passenger in the vehicle, no compensation would be payable to the occupant of the vehicle in case any claim is filed against the insurer.
34. At the risk of repetition, the above view of this Court gets strengthened by the observations in Amrit Lal Sood case, Liability to Third Parties, as has been agreed in the contract before the Supreme Court is extracted. In sub-clause (a) of clause (1) thereof, the condition prescribed is that the insurer would indemnify against “death or bodily injury to any person but except so far as is necessary to meet the requirements of Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act........”. There is a clear mandate in the said condition that 20/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 03:50:50 pm ) indemnification would be to the level to meet the requirements of Section 95.
As discussed above, the policy in the said case therein was a comprehensive policy and, therefore, it was necessary for the insurer to indemnify and in the aforesaid circumstance, the Apex Court held that the expression “any person” appearing in Section 95 as it stood, would undoubtedly include the occupant of the car who is gratuitously travelling in the car. But in the case on hand, the policy is an Act Only Policy and further no additional premium having been paid for covering the occupant of the car and further the terms of liability clearly excluding the occupant of the car, the claimant would not be entitled for any compensation at the hands of the insurer. That being the case, as held in Jayaram Shetty case, the policy being a mere statutory policy with no strings attached thereto with respect to indemnification of persons, who had occupied the car other than the driver/owner of the car, the insurance company would not be in any way liable to pay any compensation to the claimant as the terms of the contract entered into between the appellant and the 2nd respondent herein, read in conjunction, would absolve the insurance company of any liability towards the occupant of the car, viz., the claimant, so long as the statutory prescription has been complied with.
35. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court is of the considered view that 21/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 03:50:50 pm ) the judgment and decree passed by the Tribunal directing the insurance company to pay the compensation to the claimant, viz., the 1st respondent herein and to recover the same from the 2nd respondent, viz., the owner of the vehicle, suffer the vice of illegality and is arbitrary, unreasonable and is liable to be interfered with.
36. Accordingly, this civil miscellaneous petition is allowed setting aside the order and decreetal order dated 25.02.2020 made in M.C.O.P. No.123 of 2018 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Sub Judge, Krishnagiri. The insurance company is at liberty to withdraw the amount, if any, deposited. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs in this appeal.
03.01.2025
Index : Yes / No
rli
To
The Special Sub Judge,
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
22/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 03:50:50 pm )
Krishnagiri.
23/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 03:50:50 pm )
M.DHANDAPANI, J.
rli
C.M.A. NO.1978 of 2021
03.01.2025
24/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 03:50:50 pm )