Skip to content


The Divisional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Tirunelveli-1 Vs. Esakkiappan and Others - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai Madurai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCMA(MD)No. 808 of 2006
Judge
AppellantThe Divisional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Tirunelveli-1
RespondentEsakkiappan and Others
Excerpt:
.....met with road accident and sustained injuries respondent sought for compensation before tribunal tribunal awarded prescribed amount as compensation appellant/insurance company aggrieved over said award, contended that tribunal ought to have directed appellant to pay compensation and then recover same from owner of vehicle as driver of offending vehicle was not having valid licence to drive four wheeler -hence this civil miscellaneous appeal court held as per settled principles of both high court and apex court appellant was directed to pay compensation to first respondent at first instance and thereafter appellant is at liberty to recover amount from owner of vehicle quantum of compensation of prescribed amount is just and reasonable award passed by tribunal was confirmed ..........the appellant to pay the compensation to the claimant and thereafter, to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle, as the appellant had proved that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid licence to drive four wheeler and he was in possession of driving licence to drive only two wheeler. 3. in respect of the liability of the appellant, this court and the hon'ble apex court settled the principle that the claimant is a third party and even if there is any violation of policy condition, in respect of the claim made by the third parties, the insurance company has to pay the award amount to the claimant at the first instance and thereafter, to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. 4. on the aspect of mode of recovery available to the insurer, the hon'ble.....
Judgment:

(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the judgment and decree in MCOP.No.789 of 2002 on the file of the II Additional Sub Court, Tirunelveli, dated 06.02.2006.)

The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree in MCOP.No.789 of 2002 on the file of the II Additional Sub Court, Tirunelveli, dated 06.02.2006.

2. It is the case of injury caused due to the accident took place on 06.04.2002 at 22.00 hours near Manakavalam Pillai Nagar, Palayamkottai. The injured victim filed an application in MCOP.No.789 of 2002, before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, II Additional Sub Court, Tirunelveli, and the Tribunal by considering the facts and circumstances of the case, awarded Rs.40,000/- as total compensation with interest at 7.5% per annum. The appellant insurance company filed the present appeal challenging the Award passed by the Tribunal, on the ground that the Tribunal ought to have directed the appellant to pay the compensation to the claimant and thereafter, to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle, as the appellant had proved that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid licence to drive four wheeler and he was in possession of driving licence to drive only two wheeler.

3. In respect of the liability of the appellant, this Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court settled the principle that the claimant is a third party and even if there is any violation of policy condition, in respect of the claim made by the third parties, the Insurance Company has to pay the award amount to the claimant at the first instance and thereafter, to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle.

4. On the aspect of mode of recovery available to the insurer, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported in (2004)13 SCC 224 in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., vs. Nanjappan and others, has held as follows:-

..... For the purpose of recovering the same 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 owner was the subject matter of determination before the Tribunal and the issue is decided against the owner and in favour of the insurer. Before release of the amount to the insured, owner of the vehicle shall be issued a notice and he shall be required to furnish security for the entire amount, which the insurer will pay to the claimants. 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 realization by disposal of the securities to be furnished or from any other property or properties of the owner of the vehicle, the insured. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, with no order as to costs.

5. In view of the settled principles both by this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the appellant is directed to pay compensation to the 1st respondent/claimant at the first instance and thereafter, the appellant is at liberty to recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle, as per the mode stated in Nanjappan's case(supra). The quantum of compensation at Rs.40,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum is just and reasonable.

6. In the result, the Award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, II Additional Sub Court, Tirunelveli, in MCOP.No.789 of 2002, dated 06.02.2006, is confirmed in all respects and the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, M.P(MD)No.1 of 2010 is closed.

7. The appellant is directed to deposit the entire award amount with proportionate accrued interest and costs, to the credit of the claim petition, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, if not deposited already. On such deposit, the 1st respondent/claimant is permitted to withdraw the same, by filing necessary application before the Tribunal.


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