HC Reiterates: Defence of negligence of the Claimant is Alien to a Claim Petition u/S. 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act.

 

A single judge bench of the Madras High comprising of Mr. Justice R. Vijayakumar was adjudicating upon a motor vehicle case wherein the appellant insurance company contended that since the deceased claimant was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, he should not be allowed to file a petition under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Court relied on a few Supreme Court decisions to refute this defense taken by the Insurance Company and held that the defence of negligence of the claimant is alien to a claim petition under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act.

Brief Facts:

the deceased Selvaraj was driving a two-wheeler. An unknown vehicle coming from the opposite direction which was driven in a rash and negligent manner, had hit against the two-wheeler and it had not stopped but proceeded. The said Selvaraj suffered head injury and he passed away on 02.03.2012. According to the claimants, the said Selvaraj was working as a salesman with the first respondent who is the owner of the vehicle. A sum of Rs.1,50,000/- had been spent toward medical expenses and the claimant made a claim of Rs.13,07,880/- The Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence, arrived at a finding that since the claim petition has been filed under Section 163 (A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the issue of negligence on the part of the deceased need not be gone into. Thereafter, the Tribunal had proceeded to hold the second respondent Insurance Company liable to pay the compensation. The Tribunal arrived at a finding that the claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.6,12,236/- after calculating the notional income of the deceased as Rs.40,000/- per month. This award was under challenge before this Court.

Contentions of the Appellant/Insurance Company:

The appellant contended that the application under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act is unsustainable when there is negligence on the part of the deceased Selvaraj. The Insurance Company had further contended that the said deceased Selvaraj did not have any driving license at the material point of time. Thus, Selvaraj was not an employee or workman under the first respondent. They have also disputed the quantum of compensation that was prayed for.

 

As per the Insurance Company, being a tortfeasor, Selvaraj was not entitled to file an application under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act. That apart, according to the claimants, an unknown vehicle had caused the accident. Therefore, it should only be considered as a hit-and-run case and no compensation can be claimed from the appellant/Insurance Company. The learned counsel had relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court Ramkhiladi and another Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 2020 (1) TN MAC 1 (SC) to contend that the driver of the vehicle had borrowed the vehicle from a third party and hence, he will be entering into the shoes of the owner. The owner of the vehicle will not be entitled to receive compensation under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act.

Contentions of the Respondents:

The respondents relied upon the judgement of this Court in IFFCO- TOKIO General Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. S. Ilangovan & Others 2019 0 ACJ 1705 to contend that even in a case of hit and run, this Court can invoke Section 163 (A) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The question of invoking negligence on the part of the driver would not arise in cases of applications filed under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Hence, he prayed for sustaining the order passed by the Tribunal.

 

Observations of the Court:

The court firstly observed that only if there is a pleading on the part of the Insurance Company that the deceased had borrowed the vehicle from the owner, the question of stepping into the shoes of the owner would arise. The Court was of the considered opinion that the deceased Selvaraj cannot be considered to be a borrower of the vehicle from the first respondent owner of the vehicle. Hence, the judgment relied upon by the appellant Insurance Company was rendered inapplicable to the facts of the present case.

The court accepted the argument made by the learned counsel for the respondents who relied upon the Three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in United India Insurance Co., Ltd., Vs. Sunil Kumar and another AIR 2017 SC 5710 to contend that the defence of negligence of the claimant is alien to a claim petition under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act.

A perusal of the counter filed by the Insurance Company clearly indicated that the main defence taken by the company is that the deceased had driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. Therefore, in view of the aforementioned Supreme Court Judgment, the court held that the Insurance Company cannot be permitted to raise the said defence. The award passed by the Tribunal directing the Insurance Company to pay the award was thus upheld.

Decision of the Court:

The civil miscellaneous appeal was dismissed.

 

Case Title: The Branch Manager vs T.M.T. Suja

Coram: Mr. Justice R. Vijayakumar

Case No.: C.M.A(MD) No.432 of 2015 and M.P(MD). No.1 of 2015

 

Advocate for the Appellant: Mr. C. Jawahar Ravindran

Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. K.K. Samy (R1 and R2)

Read Judgment

 

 

Social media is bold.

Social media is young.

Social media raises questions.

 Social media is not satisfied with an answer.

Social media looks at the big picture.

 Social media is interested in every detail.

social media is curious.

 Social media is free.

Social media is irreplaceable.

But never irrelevant.

 Social media is you.

 (With input from news agency language)

  If you like this story, share it with a friend!   
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our
journalism free from government and corporate pressure .