The National Insurance v. Prema Priya

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 11.11.2020

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN C.M.A.NOS.1345 TO 1347 OF 2009 AND M.P.NOS.1, 1, 1 OF 2009 (Through Video Conferencing) The National Insurance Company Ltd., B.O.I, Thanthai Periyar Marketing Complex, Near Old Bus Stand, Salem - 1.

... Appellant in all C.M.As/4th Respondent Vs.

Prema Priya ... first respondent in C.M.A.No.1345 of 2009 Perumal Reddiyar ... first respondent in C.M.A.No.1346 of 2009 M.Sellam ... first respondent in C.M.A.No.1347 of 2009

2. Ramkumar Gupta ... 2nd Respondent in all C.M.As.

3. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Division-7, No.1, Shankar House, Makery Circle, Bangalore.

... 3rd Respondent in all C.M.As.

4. R.Thilagavathi ... 4th Respondent in all C.M.As.

Prayer in C.M.A.No.1345 of 2009: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Award and Decree in M.C.O.P.No.411 of 2003, dated 25.07.2008, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Principal Sub Judge, Salem.

Prayer in C.M.A.No.1346 of 2009: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Award and Decree in M.C.O.P.No.412 of 2003, dated 25.07.2008, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Principal Sub Judge, Salem.

Prayer in C.M.A.No.1347 of 2009: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Award and Decree in M.C.O.P.No.877 of 2004, dated 25.07.2008, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Principal Sub Judge, Salem.

For Appellant : Mr.D.Bhaskaran (in all C.M.As) For Respondents : Not ready in notice (in all C.M.As) COMMON JUDGMENT The Insurance Company is the appellant in these Appeals. It is aggrieved by the impugned Judgment and decree dated 25.07.2008 in M.C.O.P.Nos.411 of 2003, 412 of 2003 and 877 of 2004. By the impugned order, the Tribunal has awarded the compensation by holding the appellant along with the 4th respondent and the 3rd respondent/Insurance company along with the 2nd respondent are equally liable to compensate the claimants in the respective Claim Petition.

2.The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that, as per the FIR, the liability to pay compensation is on the 3rd respondent/Insurance Company, with whom the vehicle in question was insured. I have perused the impugned judgment and decree and the evidence on record.

3. Appeals are filed by the appellant/Insurance company on the ground that, that the FIR declares that at the time of accident, the vehicle in question was insured with the 3rd respondent/Insurance Company. However, in the absence of the Sketch, which is a vital document for determination of the representation of the vehicle in question, the liability on the part of the Appellant cannot be interfered with. 4.I am of the view that, the Tribunal has arrived at a fair conclusion that, both the Appellant/Insurance Company along with the 4th respondent and the 3rd Respondent/Insurance Company along with the 2nd respondent are equally liable to pay compensation to the claimants.

5.It is also noticed that the Appellant/Insurance Company has neither produced the Motor Vehicles Inspection Report nor examined the driver of the insured vehicle to distance itself from the liability.

6.The Appellant/Insurance Company is therefore directed to deposit the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal together with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of such deposit, less the amount already deposited if any, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this Judgment. 7.In the light of the above observations, these Civl Miscellaneous Appeals are dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-V) // True Copy // Sub Assistant Registrar jas

To:

The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Principal Sub Judge, Salem.

C.M.A.Nos.1345 to 1347 of 2009 and M.P.Nos.1, 1, 1 of 2009 CNR(CO) RLP(09/09/2021)