IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED:11.04.2023

CORAM:

The HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE N.MALA

C.M.A.No.189 of 2020

TATA AIG General Insurance Company Limited

Mumbai 400 013.

... Appellant

Vs.

C.Ramanathan

... Respondent

PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and decree dated

05.07.2017 made in M.C.O.P.No.715 of 2014 on the file of the Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Sub Court, Dharmapuri.

For Appellant

: Mr.k.Vinod

For respondent

: Mr.V.Kumaravelan

JUDGMENT

The appeal is filed by the insurance company challenging the

judgment and decree dated 05.07.2017 made in M.C.O.P.No.715 of 2014

on the file of the MACT, Special Sub Court, Dharmapuri.

2. The Insurance Company has filed the above appeal challenging

its liability to pay the compensation to the claimant. The appeal arises

1/14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

out of the Motor accident which occurred on 05.04.2023. On 05.04.2023

when the claimant was riding his motor cycle from Karimangalam to

Morappur Road, the Driver of Bajaj Pulsar motor cycle, came in a rash

and negligent manner and hit against the claimant's motor cycle causing

him injuries. The claimant was initially taken to Government Medical

College Hospital, Dharmapuri and later he was admitted to Ganga

Medical Centre & Hospitals (Pvt.) Ltd., Coimbatore for his treatment.

3. According to the claimant, he was an agriculturist and was

earning a sum of Rs.7,000/- per month. The Claimant therefore filed the

claim petition seeking a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- as compensation for the

injuries sustained by him in the accident.

4. The appellant insurance company filed the counter denying all

the averments in the claim petition. The Insurance Company pleaded that

it was not liable to pay the compensation to the claimant because he was

the owner of the two wheeler and a claim for personal accident was not

maintainable before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. In effect the

insurance company contented that as the claimant was not a third party

the claim petition was not maintainable. The insurance company further

2/14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

pleaded that the claim petition was also not maintainable for non joinder

of necessary party i.e., rider and owner of the motor cycle bearing

Registration No.KA-03-HE-1361, the tort feasors.

5. Before the Claims Tribunal, the claimant examined himself as

P.W.1 and examined the Doctor as P.W.2 and Exs.P.1 to P.10 were

marked in support of the claim petition. The respondent on the other

hand examined R.W.1 and marked Ex.R.1.

6. The Tribunal on assessment of oral and documentary evidence

on record found that the accident occurred only due to negligence of the

rider of the two wheeler bearing Registration No. KA 03 HE 1361,

which hit the claimants two wheeler. The Tribunal held that as the claim

petition was filed under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicle Act and as

there was PA cover under the policy the appellant insurance company

was liable to pay the compensation. On the quantum of compensation,

the Tribunal assessed compensation at Rs.2,17,300/- along with interest

at the rate of 7.5% per annum. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of

the Claims Tribunal, the appellant insurance company has filed the

above appeal, challenging its liability to pay the compensation.

3/14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

7. The first contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is

that the claim petition filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle

Act is not maintainable, as even according to the Tribunal the negligence

of the rider of the two wheeler bearing Registration No. KA 03 HE 1361

resulted in the accident and further the owner and insurer of the

offending vehicle were not impleaded. The learned counsel further

submitted that the claims Tribunal had no jurisdiction t