This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed to set aside the decree and judgment of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – IV Additional District Judge, Madurai, dated 28.06.2017, in M.C.O.P.No.2283 of 2014 and to allow the Appeal.
2.The appellant herein is the fourth respondent, the respondents 1 to 4 herein are the claimants and the respondents 5 to 7 herein are the respondents 1 to 3 in the main M.C.O.P. Petition. The respondents 1 to 4, who were the claimants in M.C.O.P petition, filed a petition in M.C.O.P.No.2283 of 2014, before the IV Additional District Judge, Madurai, claiming compensation for the death of one Alagammal in a road accident that took place on 02.06.2013. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.14,58,000/- (Rupees Forteen 2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.(MD)No.1040 of 2017 Lakhs Fifty Eight Thousand only) as compensation for the claimants to be paid by the fourth respondent /appellant herein. Against that award, the appellant herein / fourth respondent preferred this Appeal.
3.The case of the claimants is that on 02.06.2013, at about 05.30 p.m, when the deceased / Alagammal was walking along the road, a motor cycle bearing Registration No.TN-58-R-7996 was driven by the seventh respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit the deceased and caused her death. The claimants were the dependents of the deceased and they claim compensation from the respondents.
4.The contention of the second respondent in M.C.O.P petition/the sixth respondent herein is that the first respondent in M.C.O.P. petition/fifth respondent herein was not the owner of the vehicle at the time of accident and that he sold the vehicle to the third respondent / seventh respondent herein. The case of the fourth respondent in the main M.C.O.P. Petition (appellant herein) is that the deceased suddenly crossed the road in a negligent manner and she invited the accident. The sixth respondent herein was the second respondent in the main M.C.O.P. The third respondent / seventh respondent herein has insured the vehicle with the fourth respondent/appellant, since the 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.(MD)No.1040 of 2017 third respondent (seventh respondent herein) was not the owner of the vehicle at the time of accident, there is no necessity for the second respondent (sixth respondent herein) to pay any compensation.
5.On the side of the appellant, it is stated that the seventh respondent was the original owner of the vehicle and he sold the vehicle to the fifth respondent. The fifth respondent was the driver of the vehicle at the time of accident. After purchasing the vehicle, the fifth respondent insured the vehicle with the appellant. Though the fifth respondent has insured the vehicle with appellant, the insurance taken by the seventh respondent with the sixth respondent was valid on the date of accident. The insurance is pertaining to the vehicle involved in the accident, though the vehicle was sold, the sixth respondent is also liable to pay compensation and prayed the compensation amount to be apportioned between both the Insurance Company.
6.On the side of the sixth respondent, it is stated that the seventh respondent was not the owner of the vehicle at the time of accident, the Insurance Company has to indemnify the seventh respondent. Since the seventh respondent is not the owner of the vehicle at the time of accident, there is no necessity for the sixth respondent to pay any compensation to the claimants. 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.(MD)No.1040 of 2017
7.On the side of the claimants, it is stated that there is no dispute regarding the quantum fixed by the Tribunal and the claimants require the compensation to be paid by any of the Insurance Company.
8.It is seen that there is no dispute regarding the quantum. The seventh respondent is the original owner of the vehicle and he insured the vehicle with the sixth respondent. The seventh respondent subsequently sold his vehicle to the fifth respondent and the fifth respondent took a fresh Insurance Policy with the appellant. There were two valid Insurance Policies at the time of accident. It is true that the fifth respondent is the owner of the vehicle at the time of accident, but, the Insurance Policy taken by the seventh respondent was also valid at the relevant period. Considering that the Insurance Policies are pertaining to the same vehicle, the award passed by the Tribunal is here by modified to the effect that both the appellant and the sixth respondent are liable to pay compensation to the claimant. Hence, both the Insurance Companies are liable to pay 50% of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. All other aspects of the decision of the Tribunal remains unaltered. 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.(MD)No.1040 of 2017
9.With the above modification, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. The award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – IV Additional District Judge, Madurai, dated 28.06.2017, in M.C.O.P.No.2283 of 2014, is hereby modified.
10. The appellant and the sixth respondent / Insurance Companies, are directed to deposit the entire award amount (50% - appellant and 50% sixth respondent) along with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit and cost within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, if not already deposited. The appellant/Sri Ram General Insurance Company shall withdraw the excess amount, if any already deposited. On such deposit being made, the major claimants are permitted to withdraw their share with proportionate interest as apportioned by the Tribunal, after deducting amount, if any, already received by them. The Claimants are not entitled for interest for the default period, if there is any default. The claimants are directed to pay the Court fee for the award amount before the trial Court before withdrawing the deposited amount. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
18.06.2021 Ls 6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.(MD)No.1040 of 2017 To
1.The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal IV Additional District Judge, Madurai,
2. The Section Officer, VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.(MD)No.1040 of 2017 R.THARANI.,J.
Ls C.M.A.(MD)No.1040 of 2017 18.06.2021 8/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/