Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 426 (MAD)

Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. , Dindigul v. A. Philominambal

2015-01-27

D.HARIPARANTHAMAN

body2015
Judgment 1. The only issue argued in this appeal is that the Tribunal committed error in directing the Insurance Company to pay the amount of compensation and directing to recover the same from the 2nd and 3rd respondents herein, who is the driver and owner of the vehicle respectively. Such order was passed by the Tribunal, since the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the person, who rode the two wheeler did not posses valid licence at the time of accident. In such circumstances, the pay and order of recovery was ordered. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant insurance company has submitted that even though the second respondent did not possess the valid licence at the time of accident i.e. on 07.10.2007, he renewed the licence on 18.10.2007, which was expired earlier. The Insurance Company has not questioned the quantum of compensation. It is a case of injury. The Tribunal awarded Rs.31,000/- with 7.5% interest and the compensation awarded under various heads are as follows: For Loss of Income: Rs. 25,000 For Medical expenses: Rs. 2,980 For Pain and Suffering: Rs. 2,000 For extra nourishment: Rs. 1,000 Total: rounded off Rs. 30,980 Rs. 31,000 3. It is now well settled that the Apex Court and this Court in a catena of the following decisions, has consistently taken a view that the insurer shall pay the compensation and thereafter, they shall recover the amount from the vehicle owner, whenever the compensation was ordered on the ground that the driver did not posses valid license. The decisions are as follows: (i) 2011(1) TN MAC 641 (SC) - Jawahar Singh Vs. Bala Jain (ii) (2013) 7 Supreme Court Cases 62 - S. Iyyapan Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (iii) 2010(2) TN MAC 388 (DB) - United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. V. Vijayakumar (iv) 2010(2) TN MAC 542 (DB) - Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. P. Manimozhi (v) 2009(2) TN MAC 103 (DB) United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. S. Saravanan & another (DB) 4. In view of the categorical pronouncement of this Court and the Apex Court as referred to above, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. The claimant is permitted to withdraw entire amount.