1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 07.09.2011 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.425 of 2011 and MISCELLANEOUS PETITION Nos.1 to 3 of 2011 The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, 1, Post Office Road, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli – 2. .. Appellant/2nd Respondent Vs. 1.Anthoniraj .. 1st Respondent/Claimant 2.St.Johns Nursery and Primary School through its Secretary, Thuraiyoor Post, Gangaikondan, Tirunelveli District. .. 2nd Respondent/1st Respondent Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award dated 18.12.2009 passed in M.C.O.P.No.124 of 2006 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Sub Court, Sivakasi. For Appellant .. Mr.S.Ramachandran For Respondent .. Mr.N.Sathish Babu No.1 For Respondent .. Mr.T.Selvakumaran No.2 JUDGMENT This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been directed against the award dated 18.12.2009 passed in M.C.O.P.No.124 of 2006 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Sub Court, Sivakasi. 2. The first respondent herein as petitioner has filed M.C.O.P.No.124 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal praying to pass an award of Rs.5,00,000/- by way of compensation, wherein the present appellant and the remaining respondent have been shown as respondents. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 3. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal after considering the available evidence on record has passed an award of Rs.84,000/- with 7.5% interest and directed the appellant/second respondent to pay the same to the petitioner. Against the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred at the instance of the second respondent as appellant. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/second respondent has repeatedly contended that the accident has happened on 07.02.006 and on the date of accident, the vehicle of the first respondent is not having proper permit, but the same has been driven beyond the limit prescribed in the permit and under the said circumstances, the petitioner has violated the condition imposed in permit and therefore the appellant/second respondent is not liable to pay compensation and the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has failed to consider the same and therefore the entire award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is liable to be set aside. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/first respondent (owner of the vehicle) has contended that the first respondent is having valid permit to ply the vehicle which involved in the accident upto the place of accident and the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal after considering the rival evidence adduced on either side has rightly awarded compensation and therefore the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal does not require any interference. 6. For considering the divergent submissions made on either side, the Court has to look into the available documents. 7. The consistent case of the appellant/ second respondent is that on 07.02.2006, the vehicle of the second respondent/first respondent can be driven within the radius of 25 Kilometres from Thuraiyoor in Tirunelveli District. But the accident has happened within the limits of Tuticorin District and therefore the appellant/ second respondent is not liable to pay compensation. 8. Even though, a specific stand has been taken on the side of the appellant/second respondent to the effect that on the date of accident, the second respondent/first respondent has had no valid permit to ply his vehicle which involved in the accident upto the limit of the place of accident, the original permit issued in the name of the first respondent (owner of the vehicle) relating to the vehicle, which involved in the accident has not at all been marked. Unless original permit is produced for the scrutiny of the Court, the main issue involved in the present petition cannot be decided. Under the said circumstances, this Court is of the view to set aside the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.124 of 2006 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Sub Court, Sivakasi and remit the same to the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 9. In fine, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed without costs and the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.124 of 2006 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Sub Court, Sivakasi is set aside and M.C.O.P.No.124 of 2006 is remitted to the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Sub Court, Sivakasi. The second respondent/first respondent (owner of the vehicle) is directed to produce the original permit relating to the vehicle, which involved in the accident by way of examining proper person. The appellant/second respondent is also entitled to adduce additional evidence. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Sub Court, Sivakasi is directed to dispose of M.C.O.P.No.124 of 2006 before the end of December, 2011 and report the same to the Registry without fail. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (AE) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ Sub Court, Sivakasi. +1cc to Mr.T.SElvakumaran, Advocate Sr.No.30504 +1cc to Mr.N.Sathish Babu, Advocate Sr.No.30796 smn ssk/26.09.2011 /4c-3p/- C.M.A(MD)No.425 of 2011 and M.P(MD)Nos.1 to 3 of 2011 07.09.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/