Back
2021 Supreme(Mad) 650
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
M. Sathya & Others - Appellant
Versus
A. Dharani & Others - Respondent
C.M.A. Nos. 135, 136, 137, 514 to 516 of 2018 & C.M.P. Nos. 4518 to 4520 of 2018
Decided On : 09-03-2021
R. Kalaiarasan & R. Rathna Thara, Advocates.
The violation of Motor Vehicle Rules by the driver justified the Insurance Company's liability and allowed recovery from the vehicle owner.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicle Act - Liability and Quantum - Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 - Chapter II, Rule 3 of Central Motor Vehicle Rule, 1989
Fact of the Case:
On 03.09.2013, a car caused injuries to pedestrians. Separate claim petitions were filed against the car owner and insurer. The Tribunal awarded compensation to the injured parties. Appeals were filed by both the claimants and the Insurance Company.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the driver had only a learner's license and was not accompanied by a licensed driver, thus violating the Motor Vehicle Rules. The Court enhanced the compensation for one claimant and allowed recovery by the Insurance Company from the vehicle owner. The Court dismissed the appeals for enhancement of compensation for the other claimants.
Issues: Liability of the Insurance Company, quantum of compensation, and violation of Motor Vehicle Rules.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the driver's violation of the Motor Vehicle Rules justified the Insurance Company's liability and allowed recovery from the vehicle owner. The Court also considered the nature of injuries and medical evidence to determine the quantum of compensation.
Final Decision: The Court partly allowed one appeal for enhancement of compensation, partly allowed the Insurance Company's appeals, and dismissed the other appeals for enhancement of compensation. The appellants were given liberty to pay the claimants and recover from the insured/vehicle owner. No costs were awarded.
JUDGMENT :
Prayer in C.M.A.No.135 of 2018: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 14.09.2013 made inn M.A.C.T.O.P.No.7932 of 2013, on the file of the II Small Causes Court (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal), Chennai.
C.M.A.No.136 of 2018: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 14.09.2013 made inn M.A.C.T.O.P.No.7939 of 2013, on the file of the II Small Causes Court (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal), Chennai.
C.M.A.No.137 of 2018: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 14.09.2013 made inn M.A.C.T.O.P.No.7940 of 2013, on the file of the II Small Causes Court (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal), Chennai.
C.M.A.No.514 of 2018: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree in O.P.No.7932 of 2013 dated 14.09.2017 passed by the II Small Causes Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chennai.
C.M.A.No.515 of 2018: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree in O.P.No.7939 of 2013 dated 14.09.2017 passed by the II Small Causes Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chennai.
C.M.A.No.516 of 2018: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree in O.P.No.7940 of 2013 dated 14.09.2017 passed by the II Small Causes Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chennai.
1. These Appeals are arising out of the common judgment and decree passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chennai.
2. The facts of the case is that, on 03.09.2013, at about 19.00 hours, a car bearing registration No.TN-22-CZ-4506, rash and negligently driven by his driver, lost its control and run over the pedestrians walking along Mudichur Road near Lakshmi Nagar, 1st Street. In the said accident, M. Sathya, K. Malar and Kaja sustained injury. They were admitted in the hospital and treated for the injury. Separate claim petitions were filed by these three injured persons against the owner of the car A. Dharani and his insurer.
3. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence placed before it, had awarded a sum of Rs.86,000/- to M. Sathya, who is the petitioner in M.C.O.P.No.7932 of 2013 as against her claim of Rs.8,00,000/-. Awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- to K. Malar, who is the petitioner in M.C.O.P.No.7939 of 2013 as against her claim of Rs.3,00,000/- Awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- to Kaja, who is the petitioner in M.C.O.P.No.7940 of 2013 as against his claim of Rs.3,00,000/-.
4. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation and liability, the Insurance Company has preferred appeal in C.M.A.No.514 of 2018 against the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.7932 of 2013, whereas, the claimant/M. Sathya, not been satisfied with the compensation, for the enhancement of compensation has preferred the appeal in C.M.A.No.514 of 2018. Likewise, against M.C.O.P.No.7939 of 2013 filed by K.Malar, the Insurance Company has preferred Appeal in C.M.A.No.136 of 2018, challenging the quantum and liability. The claimant has filed C.M.A.No.515 of 2018 for enhancement of compensation. Likewise, in claim petition filed by Kaja, the Insurance Company has preferred appeal in C.M.A.No.516 of 2018 challenging the quantum and liability. The claimant has filed C.M.A.No.137 of 2018 for enhancement of compensation.
Liability
5. As far as the liability fastened on the Insurance Company is concerned, in the appeal, it is contended that, the driver of the offending car had no driving licence and same has been proved in the trial. Since there is a fundamental breach of statute as well as the terms of contract, the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the vehicle owner. The evidence placed before the Court not been properly considered by the Tribunal though the tribunal while framing point fo
