CMA(MD).No.887 of 2015

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

RESERVED ON : 08.03.2023

PRONOUNCED ON : 13.04.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

C.M.A(MD)No.887 of 2015

and M.P(MD).No.4 of 2015

The Branch Manager

National Insurance Company Limited

Palayamkottai

Tirunelveli District

... Appellant

vs.

1.M.Selvam

2.M.Jeyamani

3.Asaithambi

4.Rani

5.Rajakani

6.Sathurappan

7. Karuthammal

....Respondents

PRAYER:- Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the judgement and decree passed

by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District & Sessions

1/16

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

CMA(MD).No.887 of 2015

Judge, Theni-Periyakulam in MCOP.No.44 of 2012 dated 31.01.2014.

For Appellant

: Mr.D.Sivaraman

For R1 to R5 &

R7

: No appearance

For R6

: Mr.P.Vinoth

For Mr.R.Subramanian

J U D G M E N T

The present appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company

challenging an award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

Theni at Periyakulam in MCOP.No.44 of 2012.

2.According to the claimants, one Meenachiammal along with her

son who is the 5^th claimant were walking on the road, a motor cycle

driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner had dashed

against the deceased Meenachiammal who succumbed to the injuries.

3.According to the claimants, the accident has taken place only due

to the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent. An F.I.R was

lodged by the 5^th claimant in Crime No.72 of 2011 on the file of the

Kandamanur Police Station. According to the claimants, the deceased

was a vegetable vendor and she was earning a sum of Rs.3,000/- from the

2/16

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

CMA(MD).No.887 of 2015

said business and she was a hale and healthy lady. The vehicle belonging

to the first respondent was insured with the second respondent and the

claimants are the sons and daughters of the deceased Meenachiammal.

Hence, he prayed for a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-

4.The first respondent namely the owner of the mother bike had

remained exparte and the second respondent Insurance Company had

filed a counter disputing the manner of accident and contended that the

deceased was negligent because she crossed the road suddenly without

giving any signal to the vehicles. The respondent further contended that

the bike rider was not having a valid driving licence and hence, there is

violation of the policy condition and the Insurance Company is not liable

to pay any compensation. The respondent had also disputed the quantum

of compensation.

5.The Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary

evidence filed on either side, arrived at a finding that Meenachiammal

died only due to the dashing of the motor bike. The Tribunal further

found that no oral or documentary evidence have been placed on the side

of the Insurance Company to prove that the deceased was negligent while

crossing the road. The Tribunal further found that the accident has

3/16

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

CMA(MD).No.887 of 2015

happened only due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the

bike driver which is owned by the first respondent.

6.The Tribunal further found that the motor bike was having a live

insurance policy on the date of the accident. The bike driver was only

having a Learner's Driving Licence on the date of accident. As per

Exhibit R1, after the accident, the bike driver has obtained a regular

permanent driving licence on 14.07.2011. The Tribunal is of the view

that holding of the learner's licence is also an effective driving licence

which was valid for a period between 05.04.2011 to 04.10.2011 and the

accident has happened on 12.06.2011. Since the L.L.R was live on the

date of the accident, the Tribunal proceeded to impose the liability on the

Insurance Company. Thereafter, the Tribunal has proceeded to fix the

quantum a