C.M.A(MD)No.601 of 2022

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

RESERVED ON: 28.09.2022

PRONOUNCED ON: 23.11.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR

C.M.A(MD)No.601 of 2022

and

C.M.P.(MD)No.5119 of 2022

The Divisional Manager,

United India Insurance Company Limited,

2^nd Floor, No.7, West Veli Street,

TVS Building,

Madurai-1.

: Appellant / 2^nd Respondent

Vs.

1.Meena

2.Minor A.Ragavi

3.Minor A.Abhishek

(Minors 2 and 3 are represented by

their mother and guardian 1^st respondent

4.Lakshmi

: Respondents 1 to 4 / Petitioners 1 to 4

Natarajan (died)

6.V.Saravanan

: 5^th Respondent/1^st Respondent

PRAYER:- Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed under Section 173 of the

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree, dated

1/14

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

C.M.A(MD)No.601 of 2022

10.11.2021, passed in M.C.O.P.No.1013 of 2018, on the file of the Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal / the Special District Court to deal with the

Motor Accident Cases, Madurai.

For Appellant : Mr.I.Suthakaran

For Respondents :Mr.K.Hema Karthikeyan

for R.1 to R.3

: No Appearance for R.4 and R.5

JUDGMENT

The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the award

dated 10.11.2021, passed in M.C.O.P.No.1013 of 2018, on the file of the

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Special District Court to deal with

Motor Accident Cases, Madurai.

2. The appellant/Insurer, who was made liable to pay compensation

of Rs.18,01,500/- with interest at 7.5% pa., and costs to the claimants for

the death of one Ayyam Perumal, who died consequent to an accident

occurred on 26.12.2017, challenged the liability mulcted on it.

2/14

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

C.M.A(MD)No.601 of 2022

3. The case of the claimants is that on 26.12.2017 at about 15.00

hours, when the deceased was travelling as a pillion rider in Star Sports

two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-59-AR-0195 in Katathevanpatti

to Kallapatti road near Raman thottam, Usilampatty, the rider of the two

wheeler had proceeded in a rash and negligent manner and suddenly

applied brake due to the crossing of a dog and as a result of which,

Ayyam Perumal sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot and that

the accident was occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of

the two wheeler.

4. The defence of the Insurer is that the claimants have suppressed

the real accident occurred, that since the Insurance Policy obtained by the

first respondent is an Act policy, the pillion rider cannot be compensated,

that the Act policy does not qualify and cover the pillion rider, that there

is no nexus between the Insurer and the death of Ayyam Perumal, that the

accident was occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the

deceased and the two wheeler rider and that therefore, they are not liable

for the claim.

3/14

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

C.M.A(MD)No.601 of 2022

5. During enquiry, the claimants have examined the first claimant

as P.W.1 and one Muthusamy alleged to be the occurrence witness as

P.W.2 and exhibited 13 documents as Exs.P.1 to P.13. The appellant-

Insurer has examined its Assistant Executive Officer as R.W.1 and

exhibited the copy of the Insurance Policy as Ex.R.1. The learned trial

Judge, upon considering the evidence, both oral and documentary and on

hearing the arguments of both sides, has passed the impugned award

dated 10.11.2021 holding that the accident was occurred only due to the

rash and negligent driving of the rider of the two wheeler, directing the

Insurer to pay the compensation of Rs.18,01,500/- with interest at

7.5%pa., and costs and then to recover the same from the first

respondent. Aggrieved by the said award, the Insurer has preferred the

present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

6. The learned Counsel for the appellant would contend that F.I.R.,

was registered against one Alagarsamy upon false complaint, that the

complainant himself admitted his guilt and