Back
2005 Supreme(Mad) 1840
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. KARPAGAVINAYAGAM & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. SINGHARAVELU
United India Insurance Co.Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
P.Jaya & Others - Respondents
Civil Miscellaneous Appeals (NPD-B) No.2795 to 2797 of 2005 and C.M.Ps.No.14374 to 14376 and 18105 to 18107 of 2005
Decided On : 08 December 2005
The main legal point established in the judgment is the liability of the insurance company in cases involving gratuitous passengers in a goods vehicle and the procedure for recovery of compensation.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act - Motor Accident Claims - Section 147, Section 95(1)(b) - The court discussed the liability of the insurance company in cases involving gratuitous passengers in a goods vehicle and referred to various decisions to establish that the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation amount to the claimants as awarded by the Tribunal and to recover the same from the owner in execution proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The appeals arose from a single accident where two individuals died and one sustained injuries. The claimants sought compensation for the accident, attributing it to the rash and negligent driving of the tempo driver.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the tempo driver and awarded compensation to the claimants. It held the insurance company liable to pay the compensation amount and recover the same from the owner in execution proceedings.
Issues: The main issue was the liability of the insurance company in cases involving gratuitous passengers in a goods vehicle.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on interpretations of Section 147 and Section 95(1)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, as well as various decisions, to establish the liability of the insurance company and the procedure for recovery of compensation.
Final Decision: The court directed the insurance company to pay the compensation amount to the claimants as awarded by the Tribunal and to recover the same from the owner in execution proceedings, without filing any suit.
(Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, against the common judgment and decrees dated 05.03.2005 in M.C.O.P.No.1337, 1339 and 1338 of 2002 respectively on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Court, Fast Track Court No.II), Salem.)
Common Judgment: (S.R. Singharavelu, J.)
All the appeals arise out of a single accident and hence, this common judgment.
2. United India Insurance Company Limited 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 31.01.2002 at 02.40 PM, in the Dharmapuri-Salem Main Road near the Erapatti Bus Stop, in which one Paramesivam and one Ramalingam died and one Ganesan @ Sundararaj sustained injuries, for which the legal representatives of Paramesivam filed M.C.O.P.No.1337 of 2002 claimed Rs.15 lakhs as compensation; legal representatives of Ramalingam filed MCOP.No.1338 of 2002 claiming Rs.20 lakhs as compensation; and Ganesan @ Sundararaj sought for a compensation of Rs.6 lakhs in MCOP.1339 of 2002.
4. It is the case of the claimants that on 31.01.2002 at about 2.40 PM at the main road from Dharmapuri to Salem, the two deceased and the injured were travelling in a tempo bearing registration No.TN 27 L 6984 belonging to the first respondent and insured with the second respondent in the claim petitions. The driver of the tempo drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. Near the bus stop at Erapatti, the driver of the tempo dashed against the lorry coming from the opposite direction bearing registration No.TAS 4747 belonging to the third respondent and insured with the fourth respondent. Regarding the accident, a case was registered against the driver of the tempo.
5. In MCOP.No.1337 of 2002, the legal representatives of the deceased Paramesivam stated that at the time of accident, Paramesivam was aged about 40 years and he was doing garland business and was earning Rs.8,500/- per month and he was the only bread winner of the family. As the sole bread winner died, the legal representatives claimed a compensation of Rs.15 lakhs.
6. The legal representatives of the deceased Ramalingam in their petition in MCOP.No.1338 of 2002 claimed that on account of the accident, the said Ramalingam sustained grievous injuries and he was admitted at Dharmapuri Government Hospital and despite treatment, he died. At the time of accident, he was aged about 33 years and he was a Contractor for flower decorating and making garlands and was earning Rs.12,000/- per month. The family was depending upon his income as the survivors. So, they claimed the compensation of Rs.20 lakhs.
7. Ganesan @ Sundararaj, who sustained grievous injuries on several parts of his body, was also taken immediately to the Government Hospital, Dharmapuri and thereafter, he was taken to S.K.S.Hospital at Salem for treatment. Due to this accident, he lost his right index finger and lacerated wound in the right side chin, right ear lobe, abrasions in the left foot and one cut injury in his right side neck. According to him, he had spent Rs.35,000/- towards medical expenses. At the time of accident, he was aged 27 years. He was doing business in garland and was earning a sum of Rs.7,500/- per month and his family was solely dependent of his income for survival. Due to injuries sustained by him, he could not continue his business properly. Therefore, he filed MCOP.No.1339 of 2002 claiming Rs.6 lakhs.
8. Respondents 1 and 3 were set ex parte in the trial court.
9. The 2nd respondent filed separate counter statement stating that they denied the age and income of the deceased and the injured. They travelled as non-fare paying passengers in a goods vehicle in violation of permit and insurance policy conditions. The Bajaj tempo bearing registration No.TN27L6984 was not driven in a rash and negligent manner, resulting in accident. The accident occurred only due to the contributory negligence of the lorry bearing r
