Branch Manager v. Mayil, Age 20
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 10.11.2016
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM C.M.A.No.1234 of 2011 and M.P.(MD) No.3 of 2011 Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Opp.State Bank of India, Sankarankovil Kaspa, Sankarankovil Taluk, Tirunelveli District.
... Appellants/Respondent No.2 Vs.
1.Mayil ..Respondent No.1/Petitioner 2.M.Jeeva ..Respondent No.2/Respondnet No.1 PRAYER:- Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the decree and judgment passed in M.C.O.P.No.1 of 2007 dated 24.08.2010 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Sub Court, Sankarankovil. For Appellants : Mr.C.Jawahar Ravindran For Respondents : No Appearance
J U D G M E N T
The accident took place on 07.09.2006 near Kandigaiperi. It is the case of injury and the claim petition was filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sankarankovil for compensation in M.C.O.P.No. 1 of 2007.
2. The Tribunal, by considering the facts and circumstances of the case, granted a sum of Rs.2,10,000/- towards total compensation, against which, the present appeal has been filed by the United India Insurance Company on the ground that the future medical expenses granted by the Tribunal is baseless and multiplier ought not to have been adopted by the Tribunal while fixing the compensation.
3. Further contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the claimant has failed to produce the medical bills before
the Tribunal and in the absence of medical bills, the Tribunal ought not to have been considered the medical expenses especially future medical expenses of the claimant.
4. This Court considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the materials available on record.
5. When the learned counsel for the appellant is unable to dispute the factum of accident and the factum of injury, any one can persume that the sustenance of the medical expenses are the consequences and the presumption goes in favour of the respondent/claimant.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that Tribunal ought to have passed an order of pay and recovery. In all other aspects, there is no error or infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal.
7. It is settled position of law that in the case of claim made by the third party, even if there is any violation of the policy conditions, the Insurance Company has to pay the award amount to the claimant and thereafter, recover the same from the owner of the vehicle.
8. In Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs. Shri Nanjappan and others, reported in I (2004) ACC 524 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 7 it has been held as follows:- "(7) ....For the purpose of recovering the compensation amount 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 insured was the subject matter of determination before the Tribunal and the issue is decided against the owner and in favour of the insurer. A notice shall be issued to the insured to furnish security for the entire amount. 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 realisation by disposal of the securities to be furnished or from any other property of the insured."
9. In view of the above, the award of the Tribunal passed in M.C.O.P. No. 1 of 2007 is confirmed.
10. The learned counsel for the appellant represents that the entire award amount has been deposited and the respondent/claimant is permitted to withdraw the award amount with accrued interest by filing necessary permission petition.
11. The Insurance Company is permitted to recover the award amount from the owner of the vehicle as per the mode incorporated in Shri Nanjappan's case referred to above.
12. With the above observation, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition in M.P.(MD) No.3 of 2011 is also closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar RTI) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar CM To, The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Sub Court, Sankarankovil.
Copy To : The Section Officer, V.R.Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai +1CC to Mr.C.Jawaher Ravindran, Advocate Sr.No.68048 +1CC to Mr.P.Krishnasamy, Advocate Sr.No.68246 sm:sks/rr/22.12.16-3p-5C C.M.A.No.1234 of 2011 and M.P.(MD) No.3 of 2011 10.11.2016