1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 05.07.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM C.M.A(MD)No.138 of 2011 and MP(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 The Branch Manager The United India Insurance Co. Ltd Trichirapalli-17. .. Appellant/3rd Respondent Vs. 1.Chinnammal 2.Anbalagan .. Respondents/Petitioners 3.Ponnusankar 4.Hypothecation, Sriram City Union Finance, Trichirapalli-1. .. Respondents/Respondents 1 & 2 Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award dated 08.02.2010 passed in MACOP.No.707 of 2008 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal /Principal District Court, Tiruchirapalli. For Appellant : Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai For RR – 1 & 2 : Mr.D.R.Murugesan For RR – 3 & 4 : No appearance JUDGMENT Challenge in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is to the award dated 08.02.2010 passed in MACOP.No.707 of 2008 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Principal District Court, Tiruchirapalli. 2. The respondents 1 and 2 herein as petitioners have filed MACOP.No.707 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal /Principal District Court, Tiruchirapalli praying to pass an award of Rs.2,50,000/-, wherein the present appellant has been shown as third respondent. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 3. It is averred in the petition that the deceased by name Ponnalagu has driven TVS-50 bearing Registration No.TN-45- H-7374 on 14.08.2007 from Kovilpatti to Thathanur. At about 6.30 pm near Muppiliyan Temple, a Hero Honda motorcycle 'for registration' has been driven from opposite direction in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased. Due to accident the deceased has sustained multiple grievous injuries and subsequently he has been taken to hospital. On the way to hospital, he passed away. The vehicle which caused accident belongs to the first respondent and the same has been insured with the third respondent. Under the said circumstances, the present petition has been filed for getting the relief sought for therein. 4. In the counter filed on the side of the third respondent it is averred that the petitioners are not the deponents of the deceased. Both the deceased and driver of the first respondent have not possessed of valid licence at the time of accident and the third respondent is not liable to pay compensation to the petitioners and therefore, the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. On the basis of the available evidence on record, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal /Principal District Court, Tiruchirapalli has awarded a compensation of Rs.2,50,000/-. Against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Principal District Court, Tiruchirapalli, the present civil miscellaneous appeal has been preferred at the instance of the third respondent as appellant. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/third respondent has challenged the award in question mainly on the ground that even though a specific plea has been taken on the side of the appellant/third respondent to the effect that both the deceased as well as driver of the first respondent have not possessed of valid licence at the time of occurrence, no point has been framed with regard to the above aspect and even without framing necessary point, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has simply come to the conclusion that there is no valid document for the purpose of showing that the drivers concerned have not possessed of valid licence at the time of accident and therefore, the finding given by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is erroneous. Under the said circumstances the entire award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is liable to be set aside. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 has contended that on the basis of the contention urged on the side of the appellant/third respondent with regard to licence of the drivers of both vehicles, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has given a detailed discussion and ultimately come to the conclusion that the same has not been positively proved by the appellant/third respondent and therefore, the appellant/third respondent is liable to pay compensation. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 8. In paragraph-8 of the counter filed on the side of the appellant/third respondent a specific plea has been raised to the effect that the drivers of both vehicles have not possessed of valid licence at the the time of accident. 9. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/third respondent, no point has been determined for consideration with regard to the said aspect. However, in paragraph-9 of the order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal it has been simply stated that no positive evidence has been let in so as to prove that the drivers of both vehicles have not possessed of valid licence at the time of accident. 10. The appellant/third respondent has given a notice to the first respondent wherein he has been directed to produce RC book, Insurance Policy and also driving licence. Even after receipt of the said notice, the first respondent has not produced the same. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has not at all considered the copy of notice which has been marked as Ex.R5 on the side of the appellant/third respondent. 11. It has already been pointed out that no point has been framed with regard to the aspect mentioned supra by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and further the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has not at all considered Ex.R5. Under the said circumstances the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is liable to be set aside and the matter is liable to be remitted to the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. 12. In fine, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed without cost and the award passed in MACOP.No.707 of 2008 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Principal District Court, Tiruchirapalli is set aside and MACOP.No.707 of 2008 is remitted to the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Principal District Court, Tiruchirapalli. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Principal District Court, Tiruchirapalli is strictly directed to frame necessary point with regard to driving licence raised in the counter filed on the side of the appellant/third respondent and give necessary finding with regard to the said aspect on the basis of the available evidence on record. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Principal District Court, Tiruchirapalli is further directed to dispose of MACOP.No.707 of 2008 before the end of August 2011 and report the same to the Registry without fail. Both parties are at liberty to adduce additional evidence. The Registry is directed to send all the records immediately. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(T&P) /True Copy/ Sub-Assistant Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 To The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/ Principal District Judge, Tiruchirapalli Copy to:- The Section Officer, V.R. Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai (For watching the report) mj rl/3c – 12.7.2011 C.M.A(MD)No.138 of 2011 05.07.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/