Advocates:
['M/S M KRISHNAMOORTHY', 'm/s v pari vallal', '', 'r narayanan']

C.M.A.No.1389 of 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Reserved on : 16.11.2022

Delivered on : 06.12.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA

C.M.A.No.1389 of 2017

The Divisional Manager,

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,

No.17 A, Krishnagiri Road, SKS Complex,

Ranipet 632 401, Vellore District.

...Appellant

Vs

1.Santhy

2.Minor Kaviyarsu

3.Minor Jeevitha

4.Valliammal

5.G.Perumal

...Respondents

1/16

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

C.M.A.No.1389 of 2017

PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of

the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the Judgement and Decree in

M.A.C.T.O.P.No.423 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accidents

Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge), Vellore dated 18.08.2014.

For Appellant

:

Mr.M.Krishnamoorthy

For Respondents :

Mr.V.Pari Vallal

1 to 4.

JUDGEMENT

In its enthusiasm to award compensation to a victim who had

died on account of the use of motor vehicle, the Tribunal below has

twisted out of context the meaning of the word "third party" vis-a-vis

an Insurance Policy. The facts in brief are as follows.

2/16

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

C.M.A.No.1389 of 2017

2. The petitioners before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

Principal District Court, Vellore in M.C.O.P.No.423 of 2009 had filed

the above claim petition against one Perumal and the appellant herein

seeking compensation of a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- for the death of one

Ramesh in a road accident that had taken place on 29.07.2000.

3. The occurrence itself makes interesting reading. It is stated

that the deceased Ramesh and one Baskar of Sethumadurai Village had

taken a load of sand to one Balaraman at Sainathapuram, in a tipper

lorry bearing registration No.TN 23 AC 3651. The said Baskar had

given instructions to the driver of the lorry to unload the sand. The

driver inturn had reversed the lorry rashly and negligently and with

great speed, as a result of which the lorry hit one Pashan's compound

wall. As a result of the impact, the lorry had fallen upon Ramesh who

was standing there. The injuries sustained by him were fatal in nature

3/16

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

C.M.A.No.1389 of 2017

resulting in his instantaneous death.

4. The accident had occurred only on account of the rash and

negligent driving of the driver of the lorry who had been impleaded as

the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent was the driver and the deceased

Ramesh was the owner of the lorry.

5. The appellant / Insurance Company which was arrayed as the

2nd respondent in the claim petition had filed a counter inter alia

contending that the deceased Ramesh was a registered owner of the

lorry in question and neither the owner nor the legal heirs of the vehicle

had been impleaded as a party to the proceedings. Therefore, it is the

contention of the Insurance Company that since their liability to

compensate is coexistent with their insured, the absence to implead the

insured absolves the Insurance Company from making any payments.

4/16

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

C.M.A.No.1389 of 2017

6. That apart, the deceased being the owner of the vehicle was

not a third party and therefore the Insurance Company was not liable to

compensate the petitioners for the death since the vehicle did not

possess any personal accident policy and neither was the additional

premium paid. Therefore, the appellant / Insurance Company would

seek to have themselves absolved. They had also questioned the

quantum of compensation claimed as being excessive.

7. The Tribunal below on considering the evidence on record and

after observing that no additional premium had been paid for the owner

proceeded to observe that in all the Judgements that had been relied on

by the appellant / Insurance Company the owner of the vehicle was also

the driver of the vehicle. However, in the instant case, the deceased

was standing behind the vehicle and therefore wa