Madras High Court
The Divisional Manager vs C.Sankar on 23 September, 2014
Author: R.Subbiah
Bench: R.Subbiah
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 23.09.2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH C.M.A.No.914 of 2012 The Divisional Manager United India Insurance Company Ltd., T.K.M.Complex Katpadi Road, Vellore ... Appellant Vs. 1.C.Sankar 2.K.Chinnaraj ... Respondents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award and decree dated 24.02.2011 made in O.P.No.626 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sub-Court, Tirupattur. For Appellant : Mr.D.Bhaskaran For Respondents : Mr.P.A.Sudesh Kumar for R1 J U D G M E N T
This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company questioning the finding rendered by the Tribunal in fixing the liability on their part in paying the compensation amount.
2. First respondent is the claimant before the Tribunal. It is the case of the first respondent that on 25.05.2006, at about 08.30hours while he was proceeding in a TVS-50 motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN23-K-0783 having his wife as a pillion rider, a Hero Honda Splender Motor cycle bearing Registration No.TN23-AY-0457 belonging to the second respondent herein and insured with the appellant Insurance Company came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the two wheeler in which the first respondent was proceeding and thus, caused the accident. In the said accident, the first respondent/claimant has sustained injuries and hence, he made a claim against the owner, the second respondent herein and its insurer, the appellant herein.
3. The case of the appellant was resisted by the Insurance Company by taking a defence that at the time of the accident, the rider of the wheeler, namely Hero Honda Splender Motor cycle bearing Registration No.TN23-AY-0457 did not have a valid Driving Licence and there is violation to the conditions of the policy 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 first respondent/claimant, the claimant himself was examined as PW1 and marked 6 documents as Exs.P1 to P6 and in order to prove the defence on the side of the Insurance Company, one witness was examined as RW1 and four documents were marked as Exs.R1 to R4.
5. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence adduced on both sides, though accepted the defence put forth by the appellant Insurance Company, directed the Insurance company to pay the compensation to the first respondent and also permitted the Insurance Company to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. Aggrieved over the same, the present appeal has been filed.
6. As per the recent judgment of the Hon'ble 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. Since the Tribunal has already permitted the Insurance Company to recover the compensation amount from the owner of the vehicle, absolutely I do not find any infirmity in the award passed by the Tribunal and hence, I am not inclined to interfere with the same.
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 first respondent is permitted to withdraw the amount on due application. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
23.09.2014 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No GPA R.SUBBIAH.J., GPA To The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sub-Court, Tirupattur C.M.A.No.914 of 2012 23.09.2014