High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. SATHASIVAM & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. SINGHARAVELU
New India Assurance Company Ltd., - Appellant
Versus
Minor Krishnan & Others - Respondents
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Nos.2069 to 2073, 2178 to 2180, 2312 to 2316, 2326 to 2328 of 2003, 119 and 120 of 2003 and CMP.Nos.15294 to 15298, 15938 to 15940, 16711 to 16715, 16765 ...736 of 2003.
Decided On : 25 March 2004
P. Sathasivam, J.
Aggrieved by the common award dated 27.04.2001 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tirunelveli, New India Assurance Company Ltd., Theni has preferred the above appeals. Since all the appeals arise from a common award of the Tribunal, they are being disposed of by the following common judgment.
2. The facts which are required for the disposal of the appeals are briefly stated hereunder:
According to the claimants, on 21.02.1999, when the lorry bearing Registration No.TN 60 - 4705 belonging to one Dhanalakshmi and insured with New India Assurance Company Limited (appellant herein) driven by its driver by name Gunasekaran in a rash and negligent manner without observing the traffic rules and regulations in Sivakalai - Srivaikundam Road from East to West and going near the Betmanagaram - Srivaikundam Road, the lorry driver lost his control, due to which the lorry capsized into the paddy field on the South side of the said Road, as a result several persons who were travelling as loadmen and child labourers sustained fatal and multiple injuries. It is their further case that the persons travelling in the said lorry were engaged as workers and all of them have paid travelling fare to the driver of the said lorry. The persons travelled in the lorry were noway responsible for the accident, which occurred solely and exclusively due to the rash and negligent act of the driver of the lorry. The Srivaikundam Police have registered a case against the lorry driver in Crime No.95 of 1999 under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A IPC, who in turn admitted the offence in C.C.No.157 of 1999 before the Judicial Magistrate, Srivaikundam and paid fine amount. The driver, owner and insurer of the vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation amount.
3. Before the Tribunal, the claimants have examined Pws.1 to 21 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.45 in support of their claim. The driver and owner of the lorry were set ex party and the New India Assurance Company alone filed counter and contested the claim petitions. They examined three witnesses as Rws.1 to 3 and marked documents as Exs.R.1 to R.3. On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal, after holding that the accident was caused due to the rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry, the persons involved were travelled along with the goods, passed an award and directed the third respondent therein - Insurance Company to pay entire award amount in favour of the claimants. Questioning its liability, the New India Assurance Company has filed the above appeals.
4. Heard Ms. N.B. Surekha, learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company and G. Masilamani, learned senior counsel for the respondents - claimants. On direction by the Court, Mr. K.S. Narasimhan, appeared and highlighted the statutory and judicial pronouncements.
5. Since the appeals are by the Insurance Company questioning their liability, in the absence of appeal by the claimants, owner or driver, there is no need to refer the factual details either relating to the negligence aspect or the quantum of compensation arrived at by the Tribunal. It is the stand of the Insurance Company that inasmuch as the vehicle involved is a goods carriage (lorry), not permitted to take passengers along with the goods, in the light of the limited liability, as per copy of the policy Ex.R.2, they are not liable to pay compensation and indemnify the insured as ordered by the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the appellant also contends that as per policy Ex.R.2, their liability is restricted to six persons (6 coolies), apart from the driver, cleaner and third parties, the direction to pay compensation in respect of all persons cannot be sustained.
6. On the other hand, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents - claimants would contend that in the light of Section 147 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and in the absence of any provision to limit their liability only to six persons,
SupremeToday
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.