Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., J.
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. – Appellant
Versus
AMMINI W/O VIJAYAN K.R. (LATE) – Respondent
MACA No. 543 of 2011
Decided On : 22-12-2023
Insurance - Motor Accident Claims - Section 147 (1) (b) (i) of the Motor Vehicles Act - The court discussed the legal provisions and interpretations related to the coverage of risk for a passenger in a goods vehicle and the violation of policy conditions by carrying excess passengers. The court relied on various decisions to establish that the absence of goods in the vehicle at the time of the accident does not preclude a person from being treated as the owner of the goods, and the violation of policy conditions must be substantiated with evidence of restrictions in carrying passengers.
Fact of the Case:
The claimants sought compensation for the death of a person in a motor accident. The insurance company contended that they were not liable to pay compensation due to the absence of goods in the vehicle and the violation of policy conditions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the deceased was traveling as the owner of the goods, and the risk was covered as per the terms of the policy. The court also held that the absence of goods in the vehicle did not preclude the deceased from being treated as the owner of the goods. Additionally, the court concluded that the violation of policy conditions was not substantiated with evidence of restrictions in carrying passengers.
Issues: The issues involved the coverage of risk for a passenger in a goods vehicle and the violation of policy conditions by carrying excess passengers.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that the absence of goods in the vehicle at the time of the accident does not preclude a person from being treated as the owner of the goods. Additionally, the violation of policy conditions must be substantiated with evidence of restrictions in carrying passengers.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, confirming the award passed by the Tribunal.
Key Points: - The absence of goods in the vehicle at the time of the accident does not preclude a person from being treated as the owner of the goods, for the purposes of Section 147(1)(b)(i) (policy coverage). (!) (!) - A claimant must prove that the deceased was travelling as owner of the goods or authorised representative; mere absence of goods is not alone decisive. Evidence such as the claim petition, FIR/Ext.A1 can support this. (!) (!) (!) - Violation of policy conditions by carrying excess passengers requires evidence of seating capacity/terms of policy; absence of such documents prevents attributing liability for policy breach. (!) (!) (!) - Tribunal’s finding that absence of goods does not preclude coverage was upheld; right of recovery cannot be entertained without proving policy terms and seating restrictions. (!) - The court relied on prior and cited decisions regarding whether a passenger can be treated as owner of goods even when goods are not present, ultimately upholding coverage in this case. (!) (!) (!)
JUDGMENT :
1. This appeal is submitted by the 3rd respondent/insurer in O.P. (MV) No. 452 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kalpetta. The said claim petition was submitted by respondents 1 to 4 in this appeal seeking compensation for the death of one Vijayan due to the injuries sustained in a motor accident that occurred on 29.05.2007. The respondents 5 and 6 are the driver and owner of the vehicle involved in the accident.
2. According to the claimants, the deceased hired a goods autorickshaw bearing registration No. KL-12A/7278 for transporting hay to the house of the deceased. One trip of the hay was transported, and when they proceeded with the second trip, due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent, the autorickshaw hit a stone near the road and capsized. The deceased was thrown off to the road and sustained severe injuries. Even though he was taken to Medical College Hospital, Calicut and was admitted there, due to the seriousness of his injuries, he died on 05.06.2007. The deceased was 45 years old at the time of the accident and was an agriculturist with a monthly income of Rs.3,750/-.
3. The claim petition was submitted by the claimants, who are the wife, father and the children of the deceased. The driver and owner of the vehicle, the 1st and 2nd respondent in the claim petition, filed a joint written statement contending that the accident occurred when the 1st respondent applied sudden break to save a man who unexpectedly ran across the road. It was also contended that the vehicle was validly insured with the 3rd respondent in the claim petition, the appellant herein, and the 1st respondent in the claim petition had a valid driving licence at the time of the accident. Therefore, if at all there is any liability the amount should be paid by the 3rd respondent in the claim petition, the appellant herein. The appellant/3rd respondent filed a written statement contending that the goods autorickshaw was carrying two passengers against the permit and in violation of the policy conditions, and hence, they were not liable to pay the compensation. In such circumstances, they sought exoneration from the liability.
4. The evidence in this case consists of oral testimony of PW1, and as documentary evidence, Ext.A1 to A7 were marked from the side of the claimants. From the side of the respondents in the claim petition, the driving licence of the 1st respondent was marked as Ext.B1. After the trial, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the driver of the autorickshaw. As regards the contention raised by the insurance company that there was a violation of policy condition as the driver permitted two other persons to travel in the cabin of the vehicle, it was found that in the absence of any documents showing the seating capacity of the vehicle and the terms and conditions governing the coverage of the policy, the same cannot be accepted. Thus, the appellant /3rd respondent insurance company was held liable to pay the compensation. The quantum of compensation was fixed as Rs.2,99,250/- and the said amount was directed to be deposited by the appellant/3rd respondent insurance company with interest at the rate of 7.5 % per annum from the date of petition till realisation. This appeal is submitted by the appellant/3rd respondent challenging the said award to the extent it imposes liability upon the appellant.
5. Heard Sri. Sebastian Varghese, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri. Lalji P. Thomas, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 4, the claimants before the Tribunal.
6. The main contention raised by the appellant is that under no circumstances the appellant can be held liable to pay the compensation. It was pointed out that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger in the vehicle, and the policy does not contain coverage of the risks of such a passenger. It was also contended that even if it is held that
The absence of goods in the vehicle at the time of the accident does not preclude a person from being treated as the owner of the goods, and the violation of policy conditions must be substantiated w....
Insurance companies are not liable for injuries to unauthorized passengers traveling in goods vehicles, as per amendments to the Motor Vehicles Act and relevant case law.
The liability of the insurer under a statutory policy is restricted to indemnify the insured in respect of claims made by third parties and the owner of goods or their authorized representatives who ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the insurance company can recover compensation from the owners of the offending vehicle after payment of compensation to the claimants if the ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Insurance Company is not liable to cover the risk of passengers traveling in a goods carriage vehicle under the Motor Vehicles Act.
The court reaffirmed that insurance companies are liable to indemnify victims injured in goods vehicle accidents, even where passengers exceed policy limits, unless such violations are fundamental.
The court emphasized that insurance coverage provisions must conform to statutory requirements, ensuring that claimants receive just compensation without being denied due to vehicle permit issues.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
