1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 12.10.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.MATHIVANAN C.M.A.(MD)No.1075 of 2011 Ravichandran @ Ravi ..Appellant / Petitioner -Vs- 1.S.Baskar 2.The Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, No.50, Raja Street, Gobichettipalayam .. Respondents / Respondents Prayer: Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to set aside the order and decretal order dated 11.03.2008 and made in M.C.O.P.No.263 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court) Dindigul and award the compensation as claimed by the appellant herein to the tune of Rs.8,00,000/-. For Appellant : Mr.A.Saravanan J U D G M E N T Challenge is made in this appeal to the award, dated 11.03.2008 and made in M.C.O.P.No.263 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court) Dindigul. 2.The appellant herein is the claimant. Whereas, the respondents 1 and 2 are the owner and the insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident. The appellant has filed the claim petition in M.C.O.P.NO.263 of 2003 before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, claiming a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him, in a road traffic accident said to have been taken place on 05.04.2002, at 5.30 a.m, involving an Ambassador car, bearing registration No. TNC-9999 belonging to the first respondent, and insured with the 2nd respondent at this relevant period. 3.This claim petition was contested only by the second respondent, who is the insurer of the above said vehicle. The first respondent, being the owner of the vehicle, was not even summoned to come and answer for the claim. In fact, no steps were taken by the appellant to take out notice to the first respondent informing him about the claim proceedings instituted against him. However, the tribunal has proceeded to dismiss the claim petition on 11.03.2008 after inviting the objection from the second respondent, on the ground that the claim petition cannot be adjudicated against the insurer without determining the question of liability against the owner of the vehicle who is the first respondent herein. 4.Being aggrieved by the order of dismissal of the claim petition, the appellant has approached this court by way of this appeal. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 5.When the appeal came up for admission, Mr.A.Saravanan, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the order of dismissal of the tribunal is totally in negation of principle of natural justice and hence it is liable to be set aside. The learned counsel has adverted to that the first respondent, being the owner of the vehicle, bearing registration No.TNC-9999 shall have to be brought on record to answer for the claim of the appellant. He has also urged that even at the admission stage itself, this appeal might be taken up for final disposal, and the claim petition be remitted back to the tribunal so as to enable the appellant to bring the owner of the vehicle on record for effective adjudication and also for fair justice. 6.This court has carefully considered the submissions made by Mr.A.Saravanan, learned counsel for the appellant, and found some force in the argument advanced by him. It is the Rudimentary principle of law that unless and until the liability is fixed on the owner of the vehicle, the insurer cannot be forced to indemnify the loss of the owner of the vehicle. However, this mistake or omission, whatever may be the case is capable of being rectified in appeal, as decided by this Court in United India Insurance Company Limited, Dindigul vs. Selvarani and others, reported in 2007(2) TN MAC 510. 7.Having regard to the nature of the care and on considering the related facts and circumstances, this Court is inclined to allow the appeal and remit the claim petition back to the tribunal, in the interest of justice as contemplated under Order 41 Rule 23-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, after setting aside the order of dismissal, dated 11.03.2008. 8.Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the order dated 11.03.2008 and made in M.C.O.P.No.263 of 2003 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court) Dindigul is set aside and the claim petition in MCOP No.263 of 2003 is remitted back to the tribunal for fresh disposal. The appellant/claimant is directed to take steps to bring the owner of the vehicle, on record. The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Additional District and Sessions Court, Fast Track Court) Dindigul is directed to provide sufficient opportunity to both sides to adduce evidence, both oral and documentary, if they so desire and dispose of the claim petition in M.C.O.P.NO.263 of 2003 within the steel framed time of three months without loss of further time under intimation to this Court. There is no order as to costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CO) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) To The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Dindigul. +1 CC to Mr.A.Saravanan, Advocate, Sr.No.35354 skn C.M.A.(MD)No.1075 of 2011 12.10.2011 TR : 13.10.2011 : 2p/3c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/