Advocates:
['M/S S DHAKSHNAMOORTHY', '', 'D VIGNESHWARAN', 'O HASMUKH JAIN', 'R - KANNAPPAN S/O PAJJAPPAN', 'RESIDING AT THADIKAL VILLAGE AND POST', 'DENKANIKOTTAI TK', 'KRISHNAGIRI DIST', '', 'AOS NOT FILED', '', 'PVT NOTICE', 'R- ARUMUGAM S/O BEEMAN', 'RESIDING AT BERDARAHALLI VILLAGE', 'NALLAMPALLI POST', 'DHARMAPURI TK AND DIST', 'R- KANNAMMA W/O KANNAPPAN']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 28.03.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA

C.M.A.NO.109 OF 2022

&

C.M.P.NO.747 OF 2022

The Branch Manager

Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

Branch Office,

Opp. To CSI Church,

Denkanikottai Main Road,

Hosur – 635 109.

... Appellant/2^nd Respondent

Vs

1.Kannappan

... 1^st Respondent/1^st Petitioner

2.Kannamma

... 2^nd Respondent/2^nd Petitioner

3.Arumugam

... 3^rd Respondent/1^st Respondent

Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of

the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgement and Decree

dated 25.02.2021 made in M.C.O.P.No.144 of 2018, on the file of

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Court),

Hosur.

For Appellant

:

Mr.S.Dhakshnamoorthy

For Respondents

:

No Appearance

JUDGEMENT

The Insurance Company has challenged the award passed by the

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, Hosur

on the ground that the deceased Senthamilselvam, the son of the

petitioners, was a tortfeasor and therefore they cannot seek

compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The

brief facts are as follows.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. The deceased Senthamizhselvan, who is the son of

petitioners / respondents 1 and 2 herein was ploughing the

lands of one Annaian using the tractor belonging to the 1^st

respondent bearing TN 30 AY 1737. The 1^st respondent had been

letting out the tractor for agricultural operations and the

deceased Senthamizhselvan was entrusted with the work of

ploughing the lands using the tractor.

3. While so, on 13.06.2015 at about 7 Hrs., when the

deceased Senthamizhselvan was so ploughing the lands of the said

Annaian, he had lost control of the tractor when the tractor was

crossing a ridge situate in the lands. He fell down and was

caught between the wheels of the tractor and crushed to death on

the spot. The accident occurred while he was “in the course and

out of his employment”.

4. The petitioners therefore filed the petition seeking

compensation before the Motor Vehicles Claims Tribunal

(Additional District Court), Hosur.

5. The 2^nd respondent / Insurance Company had taken a

defense that the deceased Senthamizhselvan was a tortfeasor,

therefore, the petitioners could not seek compensation. That

apart, they had also taken a defense that he was not possessing

the requisite license for driving a tractor as he only possessed

a light motor vehicle license.

6. The Tribunal below overruled the defense regarding the

maintainability of the petition on the ground that the deceased

was himself the tortfeasor by stating that the claim was

maintainable under the Workmen's Compensation Act and therefore

the Insurance Company is bound to pay compensation. The

Tribunal below had arrived at the compensation of Rs.19,24,400/-.

7. It was challenging this order, that the Insurance Company

is before this Court.

8. The main ground of attack is on the maintainability of

the claim petition. The Insurance Company would rely upon the

Judgement reported in 2020 (2) SCC 550 – Ramkhiladi and others

Vs. The United India Insurance Company and others and would

submit that the petition is not even maintainable under Section

163 A of the Act.

9. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused

the records.

10. The respondents though served had not entered appearance

through counsel or in person.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

11. No doubt, the accident had occurred while the deceased

was himself operating the tractor. However, the deceased was

riding the tractor only in the course of his employment under

the 3^rd respondent herein. The 3^rd respondent who owns the

tractor was giving it on hire to various land owners for

ploughing the lands for agricultural activities. The deceased

Senthamizhselvan was entrusted with the work of driving tr