Skip to content


The Motor Owners Mutual Insurance Co., Ltd. Vs. the Madras State Electricity Board Represented by Superintending Engineer, Vellore Electricity System and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectMotor Vehicles
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Reported in(1973)1MLJ385
AppellantThe Motor Owners Mutual Insurance Co., Ltd.
RespondentThe Madras State Electricity Board Represented by Superintending Engineer, Vellore Electricity Syste
Excerpt:
- - the appeal preferred by the fourth defendant failed......electricity board for the recovery of a sum of rs. 165 from all or any of the defendants for the damage caused to the plaintiff's electric lamp post in anaikatti street in thiruvannamalai town on 21st july, 1958 by a motor lorry, driven by the first defendant. the second defendant is the owner and the third defendant is said to have purchased the lorry from the second defendant. the fourth defendant is an insurance company (petitioner herein) with whom the second defendant had insured the vehicle. the learned district munsif recorded the fourth respondent as an ad hoc party under section 96(2) of the motor vehicles act and held that the decree against the insured person might be executable against the insurer after judgment. the appeal preferred by the fourth defendant failed. it is.....
Judgment:

T. Venkatadri, J.

1. The only question that arises for my consideration in this revision petition is whether the Insurance Company is also liable to pay compensation in a suit filed by the Madras Electricity Board for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 165 from all or any of the defendants for the damage caused to the plaintiff's electric lamp post in Anaikatti street in Thiruvannamalai Town on 21st July, 1958 by a motor lorry, driven by the first defendant. The second defendant is the owner and the third defendant is said to have purchased the lorry from the second defendant. The fourth defendant is an Insurance Company (petitioner herein) with whom the second defendant had insured the vehicle. The learned District Munsif recorded the fourth respondent as an ad hoc party under Section 96(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act and held that the decree against the insured person might be executable against the insurer after judgment. The appeal preferred by the fourth defendant failed. It is against this part of the order the fourth defendant, Insurance Company has preferred this revision.

2. I am of opinion that the orders of the Courts below making the fourth defendant also liable are not in accordance with law. Section 96 (2) deals only with death or bodily injury of the person insured and not with damage caused to property. The Courts below cannot direct that any decree passed against defendants 1 to 3 will also be executable against the Insurance Company.

3. This Civil Revision Petition is allowed accordingly.

No costs.


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