SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2005 Supreme(Mad) 1818

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. KARPAGAVINAYAGAM & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. SINGHARAVELU
M/s.United India Insurance Company Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Selvam & Others - Respondents
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (NPD-B) Nos.3656 of 2005, 2537 and 2887 of 2004 and CMPs.No.18426 of 2005, 15084 and 16455 of 2004
Decided On : 30 November 2005

Advocates Appeared: For the Appellant:J. Raja Kalifulla, Advocate. For the Respondents: -----

Gratuitous passengers in a goods vehicle are not entitled for compensation from Insurance company.

Headnote:Motor Vehicles Act (LIX of 1988) as amended by Act (LIX of 1994), Sec.147(1) - Accident-Compensation-Gratuitous passengers in a goods vehicle are not entitled for compensation from Insurance company - For cases before 6.1.2004 Insurance company shall pay and recover from owner of vehicle.

       

Judgment :-

(Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, against the judgment and decree dated 13.04.2005 in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.527 of 1999 and the common judgment and decrees dated 14.11.2002 in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.525 and 526 of 1999 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal Sub Judge), Tiruvannamalai.)

Common Judgment: (S.R. Singharavelu, J.)

All these three appeals arise out of a single accident and hence, this common judgment.

2. United India Insurance Company Limited / second respondent in M.A.C.T.O.P.Nos.525 to 527 of 1999 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tiruvannamalai is the appellant in all the appeals.

3. The brief case of the claimants is as follows:-

In respect of an accident that took place on 12/13.04.1999 at 03.00 AM, the claimants in the said petitions and others were traveling as labourers in a open goods van (Goods Carriage Vehicle) bearing registration No.TN-25-B-1441 belonging to the 1st respondent from Chengam to Erode. Near Kanagagiri, due to the rash and negligent driving of van driver, the van was capsized, in which one person died on the spot and others have sustained grievous injuries. On account of injuries sustained, claimants in MACTOP.No.525 to 527 of 1999 have filed separate petitions, praying for a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- each. In MACTOP.No.527 of 1999, the claimant was examined as P.W.1 and one Government Doctor was examined as P.W.2 besides marking Exs.P-1 to P-3 and one x-ray as M.O.1 in support of his claim before the Tribunal. In MACTOP.Nos.525 and 526 of 1999 and other connected petitions, P.Ws.1 to 7 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-17 were marked. On the side of the respondents, no witness was examined and no document was marked. The Tribunal on appreciation of evidence, both oral and documentary, after holding that accident was caused due to negligence of the driver of the van in question, passed an award for Rs. 45,800/-, Rs.42,000/- and 1,00,000/- respectively as compensation for the claimants in MACTOP.Nos.525 to 527 of 1999 respectively and directed the respondents 1 and 2 to pay the said compensation amount jointly or severally to the claimants. Questioning the said awards, the insurance company has preferred these appeals.

3. The claimants are injured in a motor accident, in which a goods vehicle bearing registration No.TN-25-B-1441 was involved. The date of accident is 12/13.04.1999. Upon perusing the evidence, the Tribunal has rightly found that the driver of the van was negligent in his driving and so, fastened the liability to pay compensation upon the owner of the vehicle. In this respect, there is no dispute.

4. The vital question in these appeals is regarding the liability of the insurance company to reimburse the owner of the vehicle, upon whom the liability to pay compensation was fixed. The main contention of the appellant/insurance company is that gratuitous passengers in a goods vehicle are not entitled for compensation from the insurance company, since the policy did not cover use for carrying passengers in the vehicle except employees (other than driver) not exceeding six in number and that, even the permit issued is only for carriage of goods. The factual aspect of the contention of the insurance company is not contraverted effectively. In issue No.1, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the injured claimants were considered to be load men employed by the owner of the vehicle. Factually, there is no evidence to hold that the injured were under the employment of the second respondent/owner of the vehicle. Govindarajan, the owner of the vehicle remained ex parte and failed to support the case that the injured claimants were his employees; not did he produce the insurance policy. It is in these circumstances, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the insurance company is not liable to pay any amount and that the owner alone is liable. Thus, the question arises, whether a gratuitous passenger in the g

















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top