(Prayer: This civil miscellaneous appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the decree and judgment dated. 25/07/2018 made in MCOP No.440/2008 on the file of MACT Principal District Court at Puducherry.)
1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the Insurance company against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal District Court, Puducherry, dated 25.07.2018, questioning its liability.
2. The 1st claimant is the wife and the 2nd and 3rd claimants are the children of the deceased Sundararajan. The case of the claimants is that the deceased was riding his two wheeler on 12.03.2007 and was proceeding from Cuddlore and at about 6.30 am, the offending vehicle which was also a two wheeler bearing Registration No.PY01X5485 was driven in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the two wheeler ridden by the deceased. As a result, the deceased was thrown out of the vehicle and he sustained fatal injuries and he succumbed to the injuries on 14.03.2007. An FIR came to be registered in Crime No.55 of 2007 against the rider of the offending vehicle. It is under these circumstances, the claim petition came to be filed before the Tribunal.
3. The Appellant insurance company, which was the 3rd respondent in the claim petition filed a counter to the effect that the owner of the offending vehicle has not taken any policy from the appellant insurance company and therefore, the appellant insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation for the accident caused by the rider of the offending vehicle.
4. The Tribunal on considering the facts and circumstances of the case and on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, came to the clear conclusion that the entire negligence was attributable as against the rider of the offending vehicle bearing Registration No.PY01X5485. However, while rendering this finding, the Tribunal proceeded on the assumption that the offending vehicle was covered by the policy issued by the appellant insurance company and therefore, made the appellant insurance company vicariously liable to pay the compensation.
5. Having rendered such a finding, the Tribunal proceeded to fix the total compensation at Rs.6,55,000/- under various heads as follows :-
| Sl.No. | Compensation awarded under the head | Amount (in Rs.) |
| 1. | Loss of dependency | Rs.5,85,000/- |
| 2. | Loss of consortium | Rs.40,000/- |
| 3. | Loss of estate | Rs.15,000/- |
| 4. | Funeral expenses | Rs.15,000/- |
| Total | Rs.6,55,000/- |
7. Heard Mr.R.Sivakumar, learned counsel for appellant and Mr.B.Balavijayan, learned counsel for the respondents 1, 2 and 3.
8. This Court carefully considered the submissions made on the side of the appellant and the materials available on record.
9. This Court also carefully went through the award passed by the Tribunal.
10. It is quite clear from the claim petition that the offending vehicle bearing No.PY01X5485 was owned by the 2nd respondent in the claim petition. This two wheeler did not have any policy coverage issued by the appellant insurance company. In the claim petition itself, it has been stated that the appellant insurance company has issued policy only in respect of the vehicle ridden by the deceased, bearing Registration No.TN 31D951.The Tribunal on appreciation of evidence came to the categoric conclusion that the accident had taken place only due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the rider of the offending vehicle bearing Registration No.PY01X5485. Having rendered such a finding, the Tribunal assumed that the offending vehicle was covered by a policy issued by the appellant insurance company. Such a finding, on the face of it is perverse and is liable to be interfered by this Court and accordingly, the same is hereby set-aside.
11. The Insurance company can be made vicariously liable to pay the compensation on behalf of the owner of the vehicle only if as on the date of the accident, the vehicle was covered under a valid policy issued by the insurance company. In the absence of such a policy, there cannot be any privity of contract between the parties whereby the liability can be fastened against the insurance company. In the absence of the appellant insurance company covering the liability of the owner of the offending vehicle with a insurance policy, by no stretch, the appellant insurance company can be made to pay compensation to the claimants. It is only the owner of the offending vehicle who can be made liable to pay the compensation amount fixed by the Tribunal.
12. In the light of the above discussion, the compensation amount that has been fixed by the Tribunal shall be payable by the 2nd respondent in the claim petition along with interest. The 2nd respondent shall deposit the entire compensation within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the compensation amount can be withdrawn by the claimants in the preposition fixed by the Tribunal. The guidelines issued by the Division Bench of this Court in C.M.A.No.2064 of 2026, dated 08.07.2026 shall be strictly complied with respect to disbursement of the compensation amount to the claimants.
13. Insofar as the appellant insurance company is concerned, whatever compensation amount has been deposited by them with accrued interest shall be permitted to be withdrawn.
14. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in the above terms. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.