Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
P. Marimuthu – Appellant
Versus
The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Opp. to Dharapuram New Bus Stand, Dharapuram – Respondents
C.M.A. No. 14 of 2017
Decided on : 20-01-2021
Motor Vehicles Act - Claim Petition - Section 166 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which deals with the procedure for making a claim for compensation. The court also referred to the terms of the insurance policy, particularly the Personal Accident cover and the requirement of holding a valid driving license for claiming compensation under the policy.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, an employee of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, filed a claim petition seeking compensation for injuries sustained in a road accident. The claim was dismissed by the Tribunal on the grounds of negligence and the absence of a valid driving license.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant's failure to produce a valid driving license at the time of the accident constituted a grave violation of the Motor Vehicles Act and the terms of the insurance policy, leading to the dismissal of the claim petition.
Issues: The issues revolved around the negligence of the claimant, the validity of the insurance policy's terms, and the requirement of a valid driving license for claiming compensation under the policy.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the grave violation of the Motor Vehicles Act and the insurance policy's terms by the claimant, leading to the conclusion that the appellant was not entitled to any compensation.
Final Decision: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was dismissed by the court, with no costs imposed on the appellant.
JUDGMENT :
((The case has been heard through video conferencing)
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the decree and judgment dated 22.04.2016 made in M.C.O.P.No.459 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Sub Judge), Dharapuram.)
1. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the claim petition, the appeal is filed by the accident victim.
2. The Appellant herein is employed as Assistant in Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation. On 01.03.2006, at about 7.45 p.m while he was riding his TVS - 50 moped bearing registration No.TN-33-W-1748 near Dobi colony Dharapuram - Udumalpet road, he met with an accident when the cyclist negligently fell before him. The appellant sustained injury on his head, right shoulder and thumb. He was admitted at PSG Hospital, Coimbatore and immediately admitted at GH, Dharapuram, for 20 days treated as inpatient and thereafter, for 40 days as out patient. Seeking compensation of Rs.1,80,000/-. He has filed claim petition against his insurer of his moped owner under Section 166 (1) of Motor Vehicles Act.
3. The respondent/Insurance Company filed counter stating that the accident occurred due to rash and negligently driving of the claimant/insurer. The claimant had no valid driving license. The vehicle was insured for “liability only policy.” The claim petition is filed while his earlier petition in M.C.O.P.No.746 of 2006 is pending, hence claim petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.
4. Before the Tribunal, in support of the claimant, the claimant and Dr.Sekar were examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2. 13 Exhibits were marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.13. In support of the respondent, Two witnesses and Two exhibits were marked.
5. The Tribunal, on considering the F.I.R, wherein, the criminal case has been registered against the claimant for rash and negligently driving held that the accident has occurred due to negligence of the claimant. Further, the Insurance policy is “liability only policy” to indemnify third party claim. Though, Rs.50/- has been collected as additional premium for P.A, since the claimant had not produced his driving license, he is not entitled for compensation as per terms of the contract. The insurer not indemnified, if the vehicle is used or driven otherwise than in accordance with the Schedule. Since the claimant himself is a tortfeasor and had no valid driving license at the time of accident, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition filed under Section 166 of M.V. Act.
6. The Appeal is filed by the appellant on the ground that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim petition contrary to the judgment of this Court rendered in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Krishnan and another reported in (2013) 6 MLJ 520. The Tribunal failed to note that the claimant has paid Rs.50/- as additional premium under P.A cover and therefore, the Tribunal is entitled for compensation as per the terms of contract and the dictum of the single Judge judgment in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Krishnan and another reported in (2013) 6 MLJ 520.
7. The Learned Counsel for the respondent would submit that the Personal Accident cover for owner-cum-driver is applicable in case of schedule injury and if there is no violation of contract. The claimant, who is owner of the vehicle and the insurer had no valid driving license. The claimant negligently and recklessly dashed against the cyclist and sustained injury, which are not injury covered under the P.A cover of the Insurance policy. The judgment referred by the Appellant passed by the Single Judge of this Court has been considered by the Division Bench and overruled in Deputy Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited -vs- R.Rekha and others reported in 2017 (5) LW 300.
8. Heard the Learned Counsel for the appellant and the Learned Counsel for the respondent.
9. The appellant/claimant is the owner of the vehicle bearing registration No.TN-33-W-1748. He has paid Rs.185/
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
