The liability of the insurance company remains intact when drivers and conductors are unaware of passengers carrying hazardous materials, as negligence cannot be presumed without specific knowledge.

ORDER :

AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J.

Leave granted.

2. The appellant herein has moved this Court against the common Final Judgment and Order passed by the Madurai Bench of the High Court of Madras (hereinafter referred to as the ‘High Court’) on 18.11.2016 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Impugned Judgment’) in C.M.A. (MD) Nos.632 to 669 of 2005 and C.M.P. (MD) Nos.4264, 4266, 4268, 4274, 4276, 4278, 4282, 4288, 4290, 4296, 4300, 4302, 4304, 4306, 4308 & 2553, 4314, 4316, 4324, 4326, and 4330 of 2005 in C.M.A. (MD) Nos.634 to 635, 639 to 641, 643, 646, 647, 650, 652, 653 to 656, 659, 660, 664, 665, 666 and 667 of 2005, whereby the High Court allowed the appeal filed by the respondent no.1 under Section 173¹[‘173. Appeals.— (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), any person aggrieved by an award of a Claims Tribunal may, within ninety days from the date of the award, prefer an appeal to the High Court:

Provided that no appeal by the person who is required to pay any amount in terms of such award shall be entertained by the High Court unless he has deposited with it twenty-five thousand rupees or fifty per cent of the amount so awarded, whichever is less, in the manner directed by the High Court:

Provided further that the High Court may entertain the appeal after the expiry of the said period of ninety days, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal in time.

(2) No appeal shall lie against any award of a Claims Tribunal, if the amount in dispute in the appeal is less than one lakh rupees.’] of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) as also order dated 02.11.2017 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Impugned Review Judgment’), by which the review petitions viz., Rev. Appln. (MD) Nos.124 to 153 & 210 to 217 & 224 of 2017, filed by the appellant were dismissed.

BRIEF FACTS:

3. The relevant facts of the case(s) are that an accident took place at around 11:30 a.m. on 25.05.1992 in Aruppukottai – Virudhunagar Main Road, near Palanatham involving a bus which caught fire enroute. The dispute arose with regard to whether the liability to pay for the claims by the passengers, either killed or injured, would be on the insurance company or on the owner/driver and conductor due to their negligence and failure in preventing the loading of explosive materials on the bus.

4. The appellant is the owner of the bus and was providing stage carriage services to the general public.

5. 39 claimants preferred petitions before the the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub-court), Virudhunagar (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) which were decided on 30.10.2002 and the driver of the bus was held to be driving in a rash and negligent manner, as even after smoke had emerged from the engine of the bus he did not bring the bus under control. However, the Tribunal further held that the loading of inflammable material by two passengers in the form of inflammable wicks and kerosene tin had resulted in the entire bus being engulfed with fire, for which the driver and the conductor as well as the said two passengers were held responsible, but there was no proof that the appellant-owner of the bus had any knowledge that such explosive material was allowed to be carried in the bus by the driver and the conductor and clearly because policy conditions were violated could not be sufficient for the respondent-insurance company to shirk its responsibility under the insurance policy. Aggrieved with what the Tribunal had held, the insurance company filed appeals before the High Court which were allowed. The High Court held that the respondent- insurance company was not liable