Skip to content


United India Insurance Company Ltd. represented by it's Divisional Manager, DB road, R.S. Puram, Coimbatore Vs. Mahalakshmi and Others - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai Madurai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberC.M.A.(MD)Nos. 1246 to 1248 of 2006 & M.P.(MD) Nos. 1,1 & 1 of 2006
Judge
AppellantUnited India Insurance Company Ltd. represented by it's Divisional Manager, DB road, R.S. Puram, Coimbatore
RespondentMahalakshmi and Others
Excerpt:
.....of 1998, dated 30.01.2004.) prayer: civil miscellaneous appeal filed under section 173 of the motor vehicles act, 1988, against the fair and decreetal order passed by the motor accidents claims tribunal (sub judge), palani, in m.c.o.p.no.137 of 1998, dated 30.01.2004. prayer: civil miscellaneous appeal filed under section 173 of the motor vehicles act, 1988, against the fair and decreetal order passed by the motor accidents claims tribunal (sub judge), palani, in m.c.o.p.no.138 of 1998, dated 30.01.2004.) common judgment 1. it is a case of injury occurred on 04.11.1995 at about 09.45 p.m. near mysore k.r.nagar road and the injured persons filed applications respectively claiming compensation before the motor accident claims tribunal, palani and the tribunal, considering the facts.....
Judgment:

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the fair and decreetal order passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub Judge), Palani, in M.C.O.P.No.136 of 1998, dated 30.01.2004.)

Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the fair and decreetal order passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub Judge), Palani, in M.C.O.P.No.137 of 1998, dated 30.01.2004.

Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the fair and decreetal order passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub Judge), Palani, in M.C.O.P.No.138 of 1998, dated 30.01.2004.)

Common Judgment

1. It is a case of injury occurred on 04.11.1995 at about 09.45 p.m. near Mysore K.R.Nagar road and the injured persons filed applications respectively claiming compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Palani and the Tribunal, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, awarded a sum of Rs.63,000/-, Rs.38,000/- and Rs.37,000/- respectively.

2. The appellant United India Insurance Company preferred the above appeals against these awards, questioning the liability and negligence.

3. In respect of the liability, though the appellant Insurance Company let in evidences, which were not applicable and were not considered by the Tribunal while passing the award. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to consider the point of liability in these appeals and accordingly, the same is rejected.

4. In respect of negligence, the learned Counsel for the appellant referred the deposition of R.W.1 saying that notice was issued to the owner of the vehicle to produce all the documents and in respect of acknowledgment of notice, the owner of the vehicle did not produce any document. In the absence of the production of any valid driving licence and other connected documents, the Tribunal ought to have considered that the owner was not in a possession of the valid document and pass an order of pay and recovery. But the Tribunal committed an error in fixing the liability only on the appellant Insurance Company by exonerating the owner of the vehicle in toto.

5. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant further contended that the award passed is erroneous, since the Tribunal has not followed the principles laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs. Shri Nanjappan and others, reported in I (2004) ACC 524 (SC).

6. This Court is inclined to consider these appeals on this ground alone.In the case of Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs. Shri Nanjappan and others, reported in I (2004) ACC 524 (SC) the Hon'ble Supreme Courtin paragraph 7, has been held as follows:-

(7) ....For the purpose of recovering the compensation amount from the insured, the insurer shall not be required to file a suit. It may initiate a proceeding before the concerned Executing Court as if the dispute between the insurer and the insured was the subject matter of determination before the Tribunal and the issue is decided against the owner and in favour of the insurer. A notice shall be issued to the insured to furnish security for the entire amount. The offending vehicle shall be attached as a part of the security. If necessity arises, the Executing Court shall take assistance of the concerned Regional Transport Authority. The Executing Court shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as to the manner in which the insured, owner of the vehicle shall make payment to the insurer. In case there is any default it shall be open to the Executing Court to direct realisation by disposal of the securities to be furnished or from any other property of the insured.

7. Accordingly, the award passed by the Tribunal in M.C.O.P.Nos.136 to 138 of 1998, dated 31.01.2004 is hereby confirmed and all the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are disposed of, with a direction to order pay and recover in accordance with the principles laid down in the case of Shri Nanjappan and others. The appellant Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire award amount awarded in all M.C.O.Ps with accrued interest and costs within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if not already deposited and the respondents/claimants in all M.C.O.Ps are permitted to withdraw the entire award amount with accrued interest and costs, by filing necessary application before the Tribunal concerned. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //