The Branch Manager, v. S.Loganathan,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 22.06.2016

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM C.M.A(MD) No.1059 of 2013 and MP(MD)No.2 of 2013 THE BRANCH MANAGER, THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., 2ND FLOOR, SATHIYAMOORTHY ROAD, PUDUKKOTTAI-1.

... APPELLANT/2nd RESPONDENT Vs 1 S.LOGANATHAN, ... 1st RESPONDENT/PETITIONER 2 N.MOHANASUNDARI, ...2nd RESPONDENT/1st RESPONDENT 3 S.LAKSHMI, ...3rd RESPONDENT/2nd RESPONDENT (2nd & 3rd RESPONDENTS REMAINED EXPARTE BEFORE THE LOWER COURT) Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the award made in MCOP No.75 of 2011, dated 21.08.2012 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional Subordinate Judge, Karur. For Appellant : Mr.K.Bhaskaran For 1st Respondent : Mr.N.Sudhagar Nagaraj For R2 and R3 : No appearance

J U D G M E N T

Challenging the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional Subordinate Judge), Karur, in MCOP No.75 of 2011, dated 21.08.2012, this appeal has been filed. 2.Heard Mr.K.Bhaskaran, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.N.Sudhagar Nagaraj, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent and perused the materials available on record. 3.According to the claimant, on 20.02.2011 at 8.00 p.m., when

he was proceeding in his TVS Star City motor cycle bearing registration No.TN47-T-1850 at Karur-Velur road from north to south direction, a minidor Van bearing registration TN-53-M-0310 came in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the motor cycle. In the impact, the claimant was thrown away and thereby, he sustained grievous injuries over his right leg and right side of the face and forehead and immediately, he was taken to G.C. Hospital, Karur and later, he was referred to Ganga Hospital, Coimbatore for better treatment. A claim was made for Rs.5,00,000/- alleging that the driver of the minidor Van was responsible for the accident.

4.The claim petition was resisted by the appellant Insurance Company contending that due to negligence of the rider of the motor cycle, the accident had taken place and the driver of the minidor Van was not having valid driving licence. So, the Insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation. 5.The Tribunal, upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence found that the driver of the Minidor Van, who did not have valid driving licence, was responsible for the accident. While awarding compensation of Rs.1,49,000/- together with interest @ 7.5% p.a., the Tribunal directed the Insurance company to pay the amount and thereafter recover from the owner of the vehicle.

6.Though the appellant has assailed the award of the Tribunal on various grounds, Mr.K.Bhaskaran, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company would mainly contend that the Tribunal having found that the driver of the Minidor Van was not having valid driving license at the time of the accident, erred in directing the appellant to pay the compensation amount and then collect the same from the owner of the vehicle. 7.The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent has made submission in support of the finding of the Tribunal. 8.In the instant case, as rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the Insurance company has established before the Tribunal that the driver of the minidor Van was not having valid driving licence. It is settled law that even the Insurance Company proved violation of the policy condition and in respect of the claim made by the third parties, the Insurance company has to first satisfy the award and recover the same from the owner the vehicle.

9.In the case on hand, the claimant is a third party. The Tribunal, in my view has rightly directed the appellant Insurance company to pay the award amount and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle.

10.In the judgment reported in (2004)13 SCC 224 in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., vs. Nanjappan and others, the Hon'ble Apex Court made in the following observations:- "8.Therefore, while setting aside the judgment of the High Court we direct in terms of what has been stated in baljit Kaur's case (supra) that the insurer shall pay the quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal, about which there was no dispute raised, to the respondent-claimants within three months from today. For the purpose of recovering the same from the insured, the insurer shall not be required to file a suit.

It may initiate a proceeding before the concerned Executing Court as if the dispute between the insurer and the owner was the subject matter of determination before the Tribunal and the issue is decided against the owner and in favour of the insurer. Before release of the amount to the insured, owner of the vehicle shall be issued a notice and he shall be required to furnish security for the entire amount, which the insurer will pay to the claimants. The offending vehicle shall be attached, as a part of the security. If necessity arises the Executing court shall, take assistance of the concerned Regional Transport authority. The Executing Court shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as to the manner in which the insured, owner of the vehicle shall make payment to the insurer.

In case there is any default it shall be open to the Executing court to direct realization by disposal of the securities to be furnished or from any other property or properties of the owner of the vehicle, the insured. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, with no order as to costs."

11.In such view of the matter, this court does not find any illegality or perversity in the award passed by the Tribunal. In fine, the appeal is dismissed. The appellant Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire amount together with interest, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if not already deposited. On such deposit, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount without filing any formal petition before the Tribunal. The Appellant Insurance Company is at liberty to recover the award amount from the insured as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nanjappan's case [(2004)13 SCC 224] cited supra. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CO) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar

To 1 The Additional Subordinate Judge, Karur.

2 THE SECTION OFFICER, VR SECTION MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

+1 cc to MR.K.BHASKARAN, Advocate Sr.No.32012 +1 cc to MR.N.SUDHAGAR NAGARAJ, Advocate Sr.No.32670 Judgment made in CMA(MD)No.1059 of2013 22.06.2016 SMA/SS-2/SAR-3/03.11.2016:4P/5C