LAWS(MAD)-2025-10-43

H. KALAIVANI Vs. S. SATHISH KUMAR

Decided On October 15, 2025
H. Kalaivani Appellant
V/S
S. SATHISH KUMAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 6/3/2011, at about 23.00 hours, one Mr. Hari Kannan alias Suresh, was riding a borrowed two-wheeler bearing Registration No. TN-05- AF-5661, and met with a road accident when an unknown car dashed against the motorcycle. The said Hari Kannan sustained head injuries and died. His wife, minor daughter, and parents preferred a claim petition against the owner of the two-wheeler and its insurer under Sec. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

(2.) According to the claimants, the two-wheeler belonged to the first respondent. At the time of the accident, the deceased was riding the motorcycle, and the owner of the vehicle was travelling as a pillion rider. While proceeding along Nungambakkam High Road near the junction of Ponnangipuram-Sterling Road Junction, an unknown car dashed against the motorcycle, and sped away. The said Hari Kannan, who sustained severe head injuries, was immediately taken to the hospital, but he died on the following day. The claimants, being the dependents of the deceased Hari Kannan, who was aged about 25 years and earning his livelihood by organizing musical programmes under the name "Suresh Rhythm Orchestra," claimed that he was earning about Rs.10,000.00 to Rs.12,000.00 per month. They, therefore, sought compensation of Rs.27,00,000.00 from the insurer.

(3.) The Insurance Company, arrayed as the second respondent, contested the claim, contending that the claim was filed against the owner and insurer of the vehicle which was being driven by the deceased himself. Though it was alleged that an unknown car dashed against the motorcycle, there was no specific or indirect allegation about the offending car. Since the deceased was the rider of the two-wheeler, he stepped into the shoes of the owner, and therefore, the insurer was not liable to pay compensation under Sec. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act in the absence of proof of fault. The first respondent also filed a counter, contending that the petition was liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties, namely, the owner and insurer of the offending car.