CMA/1120/2020 of NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD Vs V.SATHYAVAN on 25 September 2026

COMMON JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by P.T.Asha J.) The Insurance Company has filed separate civil miscellaneous appeals challenging the common order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, II Court of Small Causes, Chennai in MCOP. No.3519, 3520 and 3521 of 2000. The details of the civil miscellaneous appeal and its corresponding claim petitions are tabulated below : Sl.No. C.M.A.No. MCOP.No.

C.M.A.No.1120 of 2021 MCOP.No.3519 of 2000 (Filed by the petitioners therein namely Dr.V.Sathyavan and Sathya Sathyavan

C.M.A.No.1121 of 2021 MCOP.No.3521 of 2000 (Filed by the sole petitioner therein namely Dr.V.Sathyavan

C.M.A.No.1122 of 2021 MCOP.No.3520 of 2000 (Filed by the petitioners therein namely Dr.V.Sathyavan and SathyaSathy Sathyavan)

2. Though separate claim petitions are filed before the Tribunal, the cause for filing these claims involves the one and same accident which had occurred on 16.01.1997. Parties would be referred to as per the ranking before the MACT.

3. The case of the petitioners is that on 16.01.1997, at about 16.50 hours when the first petitioner along with his wife Prema Sathyavan alias Prema Kumari and his daughter Sandhya were proceeding to Pune in a Maruti Car bearing Registration No.MH12 CA 5486, the accident had occurred on Nagpur- Pune Highroad, a new Truck Chassis bearing Registration No.MH12 0882 which came in the opposite direction and driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver, had violently dashed against the said car, owing to which, the wife and daughter of the first petitioner succumbed to injuries and the other occupant of the car, the first petitioner had sustained grievous injuries. The Sub Inspector of Police, Nagar Tal-Nagar Sub Division, Ahmed Nagar District, has registered a case in Crime No.16 of 1997 as against the driver of the offending vehicle. The second petitioner is the daughter of Prema Sathyavan and sister of the deceased Sandhya Sathyavan. The claimants would contend that they have been put to sufferings on account of the death of Prema Sathyavan and Sandhya Sathyavan. Therefore, they have approached the MACT seeking compensation for the death of the aforesaid persons.

4. The claimants would allege that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending Truck Chassis. They claim that the first respondent, the owner of the vehicle, the second respondent, its insurer and the third respondent, the dealer of the offending vehicle are liable to compensate them. 5.1 The claim petition in MCOP.No.3519 of 2000 was filed by the claimants seeking compensation of a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- for the death of Prema Sathyavan alias Prema Kumari, who was aged 50 years at the time of accident and was working as Assistant Professor in the Institute of Anatomy, Medical College, Madurai and was earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month. 5.2 The claim petition in MCOP.No.3520 of 2000 was filed by the claimants seeking compensation of a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- for the death of Dr.Ms.Sandhya Sathyavan, who was aged 22 years. She was a doctor by profession and was earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month. 5.3 The claimant / sole petitioner (Sathyavan) in MCOP.No.3520 of 2000 has filed this petition seeking a compensation of Rs.18,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in the alleged accident occurred on 16.01.1997. The claimant was 59 years old at the time of the accident. He was a doctor by profession and was earning a sum of Rs.40,000/- per month. He would submit that due to the accident, he is unable to do his routine work and continue his avocation.

6. The first respondent has filed the counter inter alia contending that they had placed an order with Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Ltd., on 20.11.1998 through the third respondent for purchase of two trucks Tata Model LPT1612/42. Necessary consideration was also paid as requested and the supply was to be effected within 15 days. The first respondent would submit that they had received a letter dated 29.01.1997 from the third respondent stating that one vehicle would be delivered on 04.02.1997 based on the purchase order dated 20.11.1998. Thereafter, on 08.07.1997, they received a letter from Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Ltd., informing that the could not supply the truck chassis, as one chassis had met with an accident and had declared a total loss. Therefore, the first respondent would submit that they are not even the owners of the vehicle at the time of the accident. Since the first respondent had sent the demand draft for the cost of the vehicle, the transit registration was made in its name. Therefore, the first respondent had clearly stated that it is only the third respondent who was responsible to compensate for the accident. M/s.Jaika Motors, the third respondent was not included as a party while the claim petitions were filed, therefore, the first respondent claimed that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary party. They sought for the dismissal of claim petitions.

7. The second respondent-Insurance Company, the appellant herein had filed a counter, inter alia denying the fact that the vehicle namely the New Truck chassis bearing Registration No.MH-12-0882 was insured with them. They had also put the petitioners to strict proof that the vehicle in question was insured with the second respondent. They had also questioned the quantum claimed. The second respondent would submit that the petitioners had filed another claim petition as the owner of the car bearing Registration No.MH-12- CA-5486. Without prejudice, the second respondent has stated that the accident was only on account of the rash driving of the driver of the Maruti car. They would also contend that column No.16a of the claim petition has been kept blank and no details viz., driving licence number, place of issue, date of expiry and the Regional Transport Office in whose jurisdiction it has been issued has been furnished. The second respondent would also allege that the material facts had been suppressed by the petitioners. Therefore, the sought to have the petitions rejected.

8. The third respondent who was impleaded thereafter, had filed a counter, in which they had contended that their duty was only to deliver the vehicle to the first respondent as per the instructions of Tata Motors. They would also contend that the vehicle was insured with the second respondent. However, the counter is bereft of details viz., the cover note, policy no, period

of policy or the branch from which the insurance has been taken etc., Ultimately, the third respondent had stated that it is the second respondent who has to indemnify the claimants.

9. The Tribunal has framed the following points for consideration :

(a) Whether the accident has occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the 1st respondent herein?

(b) Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation from the respondents? (c ) What is the quantum of compensation that the petitioners are entitled to under various heads claimed by them?

(d) Whether the petitioners are entitled to interest and if so at what rate of interest and from which date? ( e) To what other relief the petitioners are entitled to?

10. To prove the case of the petitioners, the first claimant had examined himself as P.W.1 and one Dr.J.R.R.Thiagarajan as P.W.2. They had marked Ext.P1 to Ext.P23. On the side of the second respondent, it had examined one witness as R.W.1 and Ext.R1 to Ext.R5 were marked.

11. Before the Tribunal, a memo was filed for joint trial. As the cause of action in all the three claim petitions arise from the same accident, the joint trial was conducted and evidence was recorded in MCOP.No.3519 of 2010.

12. The learned Judge upon analysing the evidence both oral and documentary, has held that : 12.1 The claimants have not examined any witness to substantiate the claim of negligence nor an independent eyewitness to speak about the accident and had also failed to produce the FIR, charge sheet or the rough sketch to show that the accident had only only due the negligence of the driver of the said chassis, and that the second respondent who had admitted the accident, had pleaded that the petitioners have not impleaded the owner and insurer of the car, despite during the cross-examination of P.W1, this was questioned with him in detail. Even then, the petitioners have not chosen to produce the evidence either oral or documentary nor have impleaded the owner and insurer of those vehicle. Therefore, the learned Judge went on to hold that the drivers of both the vehicles are equally negligent. 12.2 Admittedly, the unregistered chassis belonged to the first respondent and was sold by the third respondent. Since the chassis is not a registered one, there was no proper insurance for the said vehicle. Having held that both the drivers are held liable for the accident, the Tribunal has gone one step further and relied on the petitioner's claim that the cover note has been issued by the second respondent to cover up any risk during transit period, however the same was denied by the second respondent. In support of the above contentions, the

Tribunal has drawn reference to the deposition of R.W.1, who had adduced that the claimants belong to Tamil Nadu and accident had occurred at Maharashtra, which is outside the territorial jurisdiction of the second respondent, and that he had addressed the Tribunal that he would guide them in collecting materials and information, however no officials had appeared thereafter to defend the case nor had provided any particulars on cover note before the Court to prove the cover note as contended by the petitioners. Therefore, the Tribunal had taken note that the second respondent has not furnished the details of cover note and had deliberately kept it away from scrutiny, and also taken note of the fact that the second respondent had deposited a sum of Rs.35,00,000/- in compliance of the conditional order for setting aside the exparte order passed against them and that no appeal had been preferred challenging the order of deposit. The Tribunal has held that the second respondent is liable to pay 50% of the compensation amount to the claimants and that the claimants are entitled to claim the remaining 50% from the owner and insurer of the Maruti Car. 12.3 Insofar as the quantum of the compensation is concerned, the Tribunal has awarded as below in each MCOPs : MCOP.No. Award amount MCOP.No.3519 of 2000 Rs.15.88,000/- MCOP.No.3520 of 2000 Rs.23,00,000/- MCOP.No.3521 of 2000 Rs.6,40,000/-

13. Challenging the aforesaid awards, the Insurance Company is before this Court in the present civil miscellaneous appeals.

14. The argument of the counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company is that the Insurance Company has been made liable without there being any evidence to show that the chassis was insured with them. Therefore, his primary contention is that the purchaser, the first respondent and M/s.Jaika Motor, the third respondent alone can be held liable to compensate the claimants. This is the sum and substance of the arguments of the appellant/Insurance Company.

15. Mr.Haja Nazirudeen, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants on the other hand would take umbrage under the counter filed by the third respondent wherein the third respondent has stated that the vehicle is insured with the second respondent and during the cross-examination on R.W.1, he has admitted that the third respondent in their counter has stated that the chassis was insured with the second respondent. He would also state the fact that the second respondent had paid Rs.35,00,000/- to set aside the exparte order would also prove that the vehicle was insured with them.

16. We have heard the learned counsel on either side and also perused the materials available on record. 17.1 Except for the statement in the counter of the third respondent, there is no proof whatsoever to show that the chassis in question is insured with the second respondent. The third respondent has not provided any details of the policy particulars, the date of issue of policy, period of policy etc., The third respondent has also not stated whether the insurance policy was a transit insurance policy or a regular policy. The Tribunal has referred to a cover note, however, this cover note has not been exhibited or referred to even by the third respondent. As to where the Tribunal get this is surprising. The Tribunal, therefore, had apportioned the liability 50% upon the second respondent and the balance 50% upon the first and third respondents. Further after holding that the cover note proves the vehicle was insured with the second respondent, the Tribunal proceeds to hold that the first and third respondents liable to pay 50% of the compensation amount. In fact, there is no reasoning given for the same. The first and third respondents have not challenged the award imposing 50% liability upon them. The Tribunal has also found fault with the second respondent for not proving that the vehicle was not insured with them. Such a reasoning is to say but the least absurd. The second respondent cannot be called upon to prove the negative. The claimants who have come forward to file the claim petitions stating that the chassis was insured with the second respondent, is bound to prove the same. They have failed to prove the same and the second respondent has been made liable on the basis of a non-existent cover note. Therefore, the award holding the second respondent liable to pay 50% of the award amount is totally erroneous and consequently, the award insofar as against the appellant/Insurance Company, the second respondent before the Tribunal, is set aside. Therefore, the entire liability shall be apportioned between the first and third respondents.

17.2. In the light of the above discussion on liability, there is no necessity to go into the question of quantum.

18. With the above observations, the civil miscellaneous appeals stand allowed. The second respondent is permitted to withdraw the amounts deposited by them. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. (P.T.A.,J.) (N.M.,J.) 25-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No DS

To:

1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II Court of Small Causes Chennai.

2. The Section Officer VR Section High Court, Madras.

P.T.ASHA J. AND N.MALA J. DS CMA Nos. 1120, 1121 & 1122 of 2020 AND CMP Nos. 7042, 7044 & 7045 of 2020 & CMP Nos. 10106, 10109 & 10111 of 2023 25-09-2026