An insurance company is not liable for compensation when prior judgments regarding the same accident conflict and remain undisclosed during proceedings.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 27.01.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI C.M.A.No.1842 of 2019 And C.M.P.No.6117 of 2019 Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd., 10003-E-8, RIICO Industrial Area, Sitapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan – 302 002. ... Appellant Vs.

1.R.Prakash (Died)

2.Rathnam

3.S.G.Venkataratnamma

4.Sudharani 5.Nandini P

6.Praveen Kumar P.

(Respondents 4 to 6 are brought on record as LRs of the deceased R-1 Viz.R.Prakash vide Court order dated 16.12.2024 made in CMP Nos.27025, 27026 and 27028 of 2024 in CMA No.1842 of 2019 and CMP No.6117 of 2019 by MDIJ) ... Respondents Prayer:

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the decree and judgment dated 03.02.2013 made in M.C.O.P.No.3000 of 2013, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Special Sub Court), Krishnagiri, and be pleased to dismiss the claim for compensation.

For Appellant : Mr.S.Dhakshnamoorthy For Respondents : R1 – Died (steps taken)

Mr.S.P.Yuvaraj for R4 to R6 R2 – NRN R3 – No Appearance (Sd)

J U D G M E N T

The third respondent before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is the appellant herein. This appeal has been filed against the decree and judgment dated 03.02.2013 made in M.C.O.P.No.3000 of 2013, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Special Sub Court), Krishnagiri.

2.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the first respondent filed claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, claiming compensation of Rs.15 Lakhs alleging that on 14.12.2010 at about 23.00 hours, the first respondent was driving the tempo traveler bearing Registration No.KA.04/B.6162 in Chennai to Krishnagiri NH 46 Road at Subhedar Medu Junction Road. At that time, the driver of the lorry bearing Registration No.AP.27/X.0099 which was going in front of the tempo traveler suddenly stopped tempo in the middle of the road without any signal, due to which, the tempo traveler hit on the backside of the lorry and the occupants of the tempo traveler including the first respondent sustained injuries.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant further submitted that after adjudication, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation to the first respondent claimant along with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of deposit with proportionate costs and directed that the respondents therein/ respondents 2, 3, appellant herein are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. The learned counsel further submitted that the first respondent died during the pendancy of this appeal and his legal heirs are brought on record as respondents 4 to 6.

4.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant further submitted that the first respondent is the driver cum owner of the tempo traveler bearing Registration No.KA.04/B.6162 and in respect of the very same accident, the occupants of the tempo traveler already filed claim petitions before the Court of Small Causes, Bangalore City in MVC Nos.2413 to 2418 of 2011 and the Court of Small Causes, Bangalore City vide judgment dated 01.01.2014 held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent act of the driver of the tempo traveler/ first respondent and fastened the liability on the insurer of the first respondent.

5.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant further submitted that MVC Nos.2413 to 2418 of 2011 were filed before the Court of Small Causes, Bangalore City since all the petitioners therein/ occupants of the tempo traveler are residents of Bangalore. The first respondent herein/ owner cum driver of the tempo traveler is also a resident of Bangalore and he was the first respondent in the above said claim petiti