High CourtsSINGLE BENCH(2017) 10 MAD CK 0049

The Divisional Manager, The New India Assurance Company Limited vs M.Amalraj, & Anr.

Madras High Court · Decided on 3 October 2017

HON’BLE JUDGES
G.R.Swaminathan
CASE NUMBER
1181 of 2012 and M P (MD)No 1 of 2012

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 373 words
1.

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the The New India Assurance Company Limited questioning the award dated 03.02.2011 made in MCOP.No.1861 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Second Additional Subordinate Court, Madurai.

2.

One Amalraj, first respondent herein is the claimant. According to him, on 31.03.2008 at about 21.00 hours, he was travelling in a two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN 49 K 7764 on Dindigul to Natham main road. When the vehicle bearing Registration No.TN 38 J 0678 belonging to the second respondent herein came from the opposite direction and dashed against the claimant. The claimant sustained grievious injuries. The said vehicle bearing Registration No. TN 38 J 0678 was insured with the appellant herein. The Tribunal by order dated 03.02.2011 passed an award directing the appellant herein to pay a sum of Rs.1,46,000/- with interest. Aggrieved by the same, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed.

3.

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company and the learned counsel for the claimant.

4.

The second respondent has been served and his name is printed in the cause list. The counsel for the appellant pointed out that the accident was caused by the driver of the Tata Sumo bearing Registration No. TN 38 J 0678 was driven by a person who did not possess a valid driving licence. Since there were a violation of the policy condition, the appellant Insurance Company does not have any legal obligation to indemnify the vehicle owner.

5.

I find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant. I am therefore inclined to modify the award passed by the Tribunal. It is seen that the appellant Insurance Company was directed to deposit the entire award amount when the appeal was taken up for admission. The counsel for the appellant submitted that the condition was complied with. The claimant is permitted to withdraw the amount deposited by the appellant. The appellant is permitted to recover the entire award amount from the vehicle owner by initiating execution proceedings directly against the owner. The award passed by the Tribunal is accordingly modified.

6.

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.