IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Ashutosh J. Shastri, J.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Shaikh Mustaq Mohammaed Kureshi & 2 Others – Defendants
R/First Appeal No. 2080 of 2011 With R/First Appeal No. 2081 of 2011 With R/First Appeal No. 2082 of 2011 With R/First Appeal No. 2083 of 2011 With R/First Appeal No. 2084 of 2011
Decided On : 14-10-2022
Insurance Company - Motor Accident Claims - Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act - 2010 (3) TAC 914 (Guj.) - 2009 SC 1999 - 2018 (10) SCC 432 - 2018 (5) SCC 762 - 2013 Law Suit (Guj.) 1142 - 2022 Law Suit (Guj.) 2234 - 2019 SCC Online (Madras) 16849
Fact of the Case:
The appeals arose from a common judgment and award passed by the Tribunal below, involving multiple motor accident claims. The claimants were traveling in a tempo that met with an accident, resulting in injuries and fatalities. The Insurance Company, appellant in the case, contended that unauthorized gratuitous passengers of the goods vehicle are not entitled to claim compensation against the Insurance Company, as the risk is not covered by the policy. The central controversy was whether the Insurance Company could be held responsible for the compensation of unauthorized passengers in the goods vehicle.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the Insurance Company could not be held responsible for the liability to pay compensation to the claimants, as the risk of unauthorized passengers in the goods vehicle was not covered by the insurance policy. The Court did not address the quantum of compensation but focused solely on the issue of the Insurance Company's liability.
Issues: The central issues before the Court were whether the Insurance Company could be held responsible for the compensation of unauthorized passengers in the goods vehicle and whether a pay and recovery order could be passed when the Insurance Company was not liable.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court relied on various legal provisions and precedents, including the Motor Vehicles Act and multiple court decisions, to establish that the Insurance Company could not be held responsible for the compensation of unauthorized passengers in the goods vehicle. The Court emphasized that the Insurance Company's liability was not covered by the insurance policy and that a pay and recovery order could not be passed when the Insurance Company was not liable.
Final Decision: The Court quashed and set aside the order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, holding that the Insurance Company was not responsible to pay the compensation. The Court clarified that this order did not exonerate the owner and/or driver of the vehicle in question, allowing the original claimants to take appropriate legal measures to enforce the award against them.
JUDGMENT :
1. The present group of appeals is arising out of common judgment and award passed by the Tribunal below. Hence, upon request of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties the group is heard conjointly and being dealt with by the present common judgment, and accordingly, First Appeal No.2080 of 2011 is treated as a lead matter for the sake of convenience.
2. First Appeal No.2080 of 2011 is filed by the appellant-Insurance Company (Original Opponent No.3) assailing the judgment and award passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Aux.) Surat partly allowing the MACP No.1051 of 1997 and thereby awarded an amount of Rs.30,600/- by way of compensation with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of Claim Petition till realization.
3. The facts in brief are that on 02.05.1997, the applicant along-with other applicants of other respective Claim Petitions were going toward the Surat from Umarpada in tempo bearing Registration No.GJ-7-T-9618 along-with goods and the said tempo was driven by original opponent No.1 which was owned by opponent No.2 which was insured with the present appellant- Insurance Company which is original opponent No.3 in the Claim Petition. The said tempo when reached Buhada village in jurisdiction of Mandvi Police Station, since the tempo was running in a rash and negligent manner, the driver lost control, and resultantly, turtled, wherein, all the applicants sustained injuries.
4. So far as this applicant is concerned, he was admitted in Civil Hospital for treatment, later on, was required to be shifted in Lokhat Hospital and was treated and on account of such treatment not only he had incurred huge medical and other expenses, but has also lost future income. Hence, has filed a Claim Petition for seeking compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) which was registered as MACP No.1051 of 1997.
5. So far as First Appeal No.2081 of 2011 is concerned, the same is arising out of a judgment and order passed in MACP No.40 of 1998. The background of this Claim Petition is that the claimants of this MACP were also traveling in tempo bearing registration No.GJ-7-T-9618 along-with other claimants and the said tempo as stated above has turtled on account of which the son of the claimant sustained serious injuries to which he succumbed and at that relevant point of time the son was aged about 12 years. He was shifted to the hospital for further treatment but he could not survive and expired. He was studying in standard 4th and as such on the various heads an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was claimed by way of compensation. The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.) Surat was pleased to award only Rs.1,54,000/- together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum till realization and since the Insurance Company has been saddled with liability, the appellant-Insurance Company has filed present First Appeal to contend that Insurance Company cannot be held responsible.
6. So far as the First Appeal No.2082 of 2011 is concerned, the same is directed against the vary same judgment and award dated 21.03.2011 passed in MACP No.59 of 1998 and the facts in brief of this MACP No.59 of 1998 are that applicant was travelling in the aforesaid tempo along-with other claimants of respective Claim Petitions and on account of tempo having been turtled all received injuries and the applicant of this MACP No.59 of 1998 has sustained injuries of multiple fracture in left hand and also in the left leg on account of such serious injuries have sustained in addition to medical expenditure has also took medical treatment and as such by projecting the different heads, the petition was filed for claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Only) and it is the grievance of the Insurance Company that though there is no liability of Insurance Company, an award has been passed to the extent of Rs.1,04,000/- to be paid with 9% interest from the date of Claim Petition till realization and as su
New India Assurance Company Limited v. Sahantaben Bava & Others
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jyotibala Ghanshyam Joshi
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sudhakaran K.V.
General Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M. Laxmi and Others
United India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh and Ors.
New India Assurance Vs. Asha Rani and Others
United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Tilak Singh and others
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Insurance Company cannot be held responsible for the compensation of unauthorized passengers in a goods vehicle when the risk is not cover....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation for unauthorized passengers in goods vehicles, based on the interpretation of relevant....
The court established that an insurance company may be required to pay compensation to claimants even if there is a breach of policy conditions, provided the circumstances warrant such an order, ther....
Point of Law : Insurance Company was directed to pay compensation even for gratuitous passenger considering circumstances of this case under the “Doctrine of Pay and Recover” from the driver and owne....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation for the death of a gratuitous passenger in a goods vehicle.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify a gratuitous passenger on board a goods vehicle unless the passenger is the owner of the good....
Insurance companies are not liable to indemnify claims for gratuitous passengers in goods vehicles under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as their risks are not covered by statutory insurance policies.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.