BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 02/11/2007 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA C.M.A.(MD) No.782 of 2005 and C.M.P.(MD)No.4950 of 2005 The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., represented by its Branch Manager, Kovilpatti. ... Appellant Vs 1.Guruvammal 2.Prasanna ... Respondents Prayer Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgement and Decree dated 24.09.2004 passed in MCOP.No.33 of 2001 by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum the Subordinate Judge, Kovilpatti. !For Appellant ... Mr.K.Bhaskaran ^For Respondent No.1 ... Mr.N.Subramani (No appearaqnce) For Respondent No.2 ... Mr.R.Vijayakumar :JUDGMENT
This appeal is focussed as against the Judgement and Decree dated
24.09.2004 passed in MCOP.No.33 of 2001 by the learned Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal cum the Subordinate Judge, Kovilpatti.
2. Heard both sides.
3. A re’sume’ of facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal
of this appeal would run thus:
The claimant who is the first respondent herein, who filed the
M.C.O.P.No.33 of 2001 before Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum Sub Court,
Kovilpatti, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the
accident, which took place on 13.01.2001 at 07.30 a.m.
4. The claimant was the pillion rider on the cycle ridden by his son at
the time of the accident, which took place due the rash and negligent driving of
the two wheeler belonging to the respondent No.1 therein, driven by one
Chermaraj @ Balaji.
5. The Tribunal during enquiry arrived at the finding that the said
Chermaraj @ Balaji was not having proper driving licence at the relevant time of
the accident and ultimately while awarding the compensation of Rs.13,500/-
(Rupees thirteen thousand and five hundred only) fixed the ultimate
responsibility to pay the amount on the owner. However, it added rightly to the
effect that the Insurance Company should pay it at the first instance and
recover if from the owner of the vehicle viz., the respondent No.1 therein.
6. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the award of the Tribunal this
appeal has been filed on various grounds. While arguing the matter, the learned
counsel for the appellant Insurance Company would raise his arguments to the
effect that the Insurance Company would be satisfied if necessary clarification
and direction are given to the effect that the Insurance Company on paying the
compensation amount to the claimant could straight away get it from the
respondent No.1 therein, viz., Prasanna. Paragraph No.13 of the Judgment of the
Tribunal would read as under:
“”… nt;tHf;fpy; tpgj;jpid Vw;gLj;jpa thfdk; o.vd;.69, xa;.9046 Xl;oa
egh; Brh;kuh$; vd;w ghyh$pf;F Xl;Leh; chpkk; ny;iy vd;w BghjpYk; ne;j thfdk; 2k;
vjph;kDjhuh; fhg;gPl;L fHfj;jpy; fhg;gPL bra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ vd;w epiyapy; 2k;
vjph;kDjhuh; fhg;gPl;L fHfk; e&;l NL bfhLf;f flikg;gl;Ls;sJ vd;Wk; gpd;dh;
fhg;gPl;L fHfk; nj;bjhifia Bjitahd eltof;if Kyk; fhg;gPl;L tpjp kPwy; cs;sJ
vd;gij epUgpj;J mj;bjhifia thfdj;jpd; chpikahshplk; bgw;Wf;bfhs;sf;ToaJ vd;W;k
ne;ePjpkd;wk; jPh;t[ fhz;fpwJ…”
7. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that even though
there is a direction to get reimbursed from Prasanna, the respondent No.2, the
owner of the vehicle, the wordings above connote and denote as though they have
to file a suit to recover it.
8. In my opinion such a filing of suit is not required and I hereby direct
the appellant Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount at the first
instance and get it reimbursed straight away from the owner of the vehicle,
Prasanna, the second respondent. If there is any difficulty in recovering the
amount from the owner of the vehicle, the appellant Insurance company could file
an Execution Petition before the Court concerned and get it recovered.
9. With the above observation, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed
of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
smn
To
The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum
Subordinate Judge, Kovilpatti.