| |
CDJ 2026 MHC 4572
|
| Court : Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court |
| Case No : C.M.A(MD)Nos. 1007 of 2025 & CMP(MD) No. 15189 of 2025 |
| Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN |
| Parties : The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Salem Versus Rajakumari & Others |
| Appearing Advocates : For the Appellant: N. Dilipkumar, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1 & R2, N. Sudhagar Nagaraj, R3, R. Sadeswaran, Advocates. |
| Date of Judgment : 15-06-2026 |
| Head Note :- |
Motor Vehicles Act - Section 173 -
|
| Summary :- |
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules / Orders / Regulations, and Sections Mentioned:
- section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act
- Motor Vehicles Act
2. Catch Words:
- pay and recover
- compensation
- motor accident
- insurance
3. Summary:
The Insurance Company appealed against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dated 23.01.2024 in MCOP No. 801 of 2022. The Tribunal had held the third respondent’s driver negligent and ordered a compensation of Rs. 5,81,520 with interest, also directing a “pay and recover” order because the driver lacked a valid licence and fitness certificate. The appellant contended that the “pay and recover” direction was illegal. The Court examined the submissions and relied on its earlier judgment in CMA.(MD).No. 517 of 2025, which upheld the principle of “pay and recover” in similar facts. It found no illegality in the Tribunal’s order and held the quantum of compensation reasonable. The Court noted that the award amount had already been deposited with the Tribunal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the claimants may withdraw the compensation as fixed.
4. Conclusion:
Appeal Dismissed |
| Judgment :- |
|
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act to set aside the Fair and Decreetal order passed by the Learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/ Special District Judge No.II, to deal with MCOP Cases, Tiruchirappalli in M.C.O.P.No.801 of 2024 dated 23.01.2024 and dismiss the same as against the appellant and thus render justice.)
N. Anand Venkatesh, J.
1. This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company challenging the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Special District Judge No. II, to deal with MCOP cases, Tiruchirappalli, in MCOP No. 801 of 2022 dated 23.01.2024.
2. The respondents are the claimants. The first respondent is the wife of the deceased and the second and fourth respondents are the daughters of the deceased. The case of the respondents is that on 26.06.2022, at about 4.00 p.m., the deceased was peddling a bicycle on the road and at that point of time, the Bolero Van belonging to the third respondent herein was driven in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased from the opposite direction, as a result of which, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and was taken to Government Hospital, Thuraiyur, where he succumbed to the injuries. An FIR came to be registered in Crime No 199 of 2022. It is under these circumstances, the claim petition came to be filed before this Tribunal.
3. The Tribunal, on considering the facts and circumstances of the case and on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, came to a conclusion that the accident had taken place only due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the offending vehicle.
4. Having rendered such finding, the Tribunal fixed the total compensation at Rs.5,81,520/-under the following heads:
Head
| Amount
| Loss of Dependency
| Rs.4,00,020/-
| Spousal Consortium to the 1st respondent, the wife of the deceased
| Rs.48,400/-
| Parental Consortium to the 2nd respondent, the daughter of the deceased
| Rs.48,400/-
| Parental Consortium to the 4th respondent, the daughter of the deceased
| Rs.48,400/-
| Loss of estate
| Rs.18,150/-
| Funeral expense
| Rs.18,150/-
| Total
| Rs. 5,81,520/-
|
5. The above compensation was directed to be paid along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. However considering the fact that the driver of the offending vehicle did not posses a valid driving license and fitness certificate, pay and recover was ordered.
6. The Insurance Company has filed the present appeal mainly on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle respondent did not possess a valid driving license and fitness certificate and therefore, pay and recover ought not to have been ordered.
7. This Court carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and also the award passed by the Tribunal.
8. The ground that was taken by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is to the effect that the Tribunal ought not to have ordered for pay and recover. The said ground is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in a batch of appeals in CMA.(MD).No.517 of 2025 etc, dated 01.06.2026. Hence, this Court does not find any illegality in the order passed by the Tribunal applying the principle of pay and recover.
9. Insofar as the first ground that was raised by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the same is squarely covered by the judgment passed by this Court in a batch of appeals in CMA.(MD).No. 517 of 2025 etc, dated 01.06.2026, wherein, this Court has sustained the principle pay and recover ordered by the Tribunal in similar circumstances.
10. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, this Court finds that the Tribunal has granted a just and reasonable compensation and it does not require the interference of this Court.
11. It is brought to the notice of this court by the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company that the entire award amount has already been deposited before the Tribunal.
12. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands dismissed. The Claimants will be entitled to withdraw the compensation amount in the proportion as fixed by the tribunal. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
|
| |
