IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 14.02.2022

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM

and

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM

C.M.A.Nos.3267 of 2017 & 1335 of 2018

and

C.M.P.Nos.20401 of 2017 & 10735 of 2018

M/s United India Insurance Company Limited,

Pallivasal Street,

Perambalur. ... Appellant in both appeals/2^nd Respondent

(in both)

Vs.

1.Balan

2.Shanthi

...1 & 2 Respondents/Petitioners

(in CMA 3267/17)

3.M/s. Social Change and Development,

No.105, A-1, Bye-Pass Road,

Vannarapettai,

Tirunelveli – 627 002.

...3^rd Respondents in CMA No.3267 of 2017/1^st Respondent

1.Irudaya Adimai

2.Alphonsal

3.Navilraj

4.John Jagan

5.Mary Lincy Mol

...1 to 5 Respondents/Petitioners

in CMA 1335/18

6.M/s. Social Change and Development,

No.105, A-1, Bye-Pass Road,

Vannarapettai,

Tirunelveli – 627 002.

...6^th Respondents in CMA No.1335 of 2018/

1^st Respondent

COMMON PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed under

Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988 against the Judgment and

Decree made in MCOP Nos.714 of 2014 and 578 of 2015 dated

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

05.01.2017, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal

(Principal District Court) Perambalur.

In CMA No.3267 of 2017;

For Appellant : Mr.M.B.Raghavan

For Respondents: Mr.D.Bhoopal for

Mr.T.Gopinath for R1 and R2

No appearance for R3

In CMA No.1335 of 2018;

For Appellant : Mr.M.B.Raghavan

For Respondents: Mr.D.Bhoopal for

Mr.T.Gopinath for R1 and 2

No appearance for R3to 6

COMMON JUDGMENT

[Common Judgment of the Court was delivered by

K.KALYANASUNDARAM, J.]

These appeals have been preferred challenging the Common

Award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal

District Judge), Perambalur in MCOP Nos.578 of 2015 and 714 of

2014 dated 05.01.2017.

2. A Toyotta Innova Car bearing Reg.No.TN-72-AM-6049

belongs to the respondent Educational Institution, by name,

M/s.Social Change and Development, Tirunelveli. On 23.11.2013,

the car was driven by the deceased Babu John, in which, the

deceased Prabhu travelled as occupant. The car met with an

accident at 02.10 p.m and both of them died on the spot. It is

the case of the claimants that the driver of the bus bearing

Reg.No.TN-01-AN-0104 drove it from the opposite direction in a

rash and negligent manner and rammed the car.

3. It is not in dispute that both the deceased were working

as Chief Administrative Officer and Manager in the respondent

Educational Institution. The legal heirs of the deceased sought

compensation in the claim petitions. Although they have pleaded

in the claim petitions that the accident had happened due to the

negligent of the driver of the bus, the owner of the bus was not

impleaded as respondent. It is also seen that the claimants did

not examine the eyewitness to prove the negligence.

4. MCOP No.714 of 2014 was filed under Sections 165, 166

and 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act and another claim petition in

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

MCOP No.578 of 2015 was filed under Sections 165 and 167 of the

Motor Vehicles Act. Section 165 deals with the Constitution of

the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and Section 167 gives option

to the claimants to choose a Forum where they can claim

compensation.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant

Mr.M.B.Raghavan placing reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble

Apex Court in the case of Surender Kumar Arora and another vs.

Manoj Bisla and others reported in (2012)4 SCC 552, Nishan Singh

and others vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited reported in

(2018)6 SCC 765 and Minu B.Mehta and another vs. Balkrishna

Ramachandra Nayan and another reported in (1997)2 SCC 441,

argued that unless a finding is given on negligence, the owner

cannot be mulcted with the liability.

6.This proposition is not disputed by the learned coun