Back
2009 Supreme(Mad) 848
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUDHAKAR
Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited
Versus
A. Pappathi & Others
C.M.A.Nos.4203 and 4204 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2008 in both appeals
Decided on : 30-03-2009
For the Appellant:N. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate.
For the Respondents:P. Selvaraj, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the insurance policy coverage for occupants of a private car and the liability of the insurance company for gratuitous passengers. The court's decision clarified the requirement of additional premium for coverage of occupants and the recovery of the award amount from the owner of the vehicle.
Headnote:
Insurance - Motor Accident Claims - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 166 - Fatal accident involving private car - Compensation for death and bodily injury to occupants - Interpretation of insurance policy - Liability of insurance company for gratuitous passengers - Applicability of statutory insurance policy - Requirement of additional premium for coverage of occupants - Court's reliance on previous decisions and circulars - Conclusion on liability and recovery of award amount
Fact of the Case:
The appeals challenged awards passed in fatal accident cases involving a private car. The deceased and another occupant suffered grievous injuries and died. The claimants sought compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The insurance company contended that the victims were gratuitous passengers and there was no statutory liability to cover their risk under the insurance policy. The Tribunal relied on previous court decisions and directed the insurer to pay the claimants and recover the award amount from the owner of the vehicle.
Finding of the Court:
The court rejected the appellant's contention and confirmed the Tribunal's award. It held that the package policy covered the liability for death or bodily injury to occupants of the private car. The court concluded that the appellant was liable to pay the claimants and no order could be passed against the owner of the vehicle. The court granted eight weeks for the appellant to deposit the award amount, allowing the claimants to withdraw the amount upon deposit.
Issues: Interpretation of insurance policy coverage for occupants of private car - Liability of insurance company for gratuitous passengers - Requirement of additional premium for coverage of occupants - Recovery of award amount from the owner of the vehicle
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the package policy covered the liability for death or bodily injury to occupants of the private car, rejecting the appellant's contention. It concluded that the appellant was liable to pay the claimants and no order could be passed against the owner of the vehicle. The court relied on previous decisions and circulars to interpret the insurance policy and determine the liability of the insurance company for gratuitous passengers.
Final Decision: The court confirmed the Tribunal's award, granting eight weeks for the appellant to deposit the award amount and allowing the claimants to withdraw the amount upon deposit. The court concluded that the appellant was liable to pay the claimants and no order could be passed against the owner of the vehicle.
The Insurance Company has filed these two appeals challenging the awards dated 30.6.2008 passed in M.C.O.P.Nos.315 and 309 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Subordinate Court), Poonamallee.
2. In both the appeals Mr.P.Selvaraj, counsel appears for caveators, the respondents 1 and 2 in C.M.A.No.4203 of 2008 and the respondents 1 to 5 in C.M.A.No.4204 of 2008. In view of the endorsement made by the counsel for the appellant in the appeal grounds, notice to the owner of the vehicle, viz., the respondent No.3 in C.M.A.No.4203 of 2008 and respondent No.6 in C.M.A.No.4204 of 2008 is dispensed with. By consent of both parties, main appeals are taken up for final disposal.
3. C.M.A.No.4204 of 2008 (M.C.O.P.No.309 of 2007):-It is a case of fatal accident. The motor accident in this case happened on 18. 2006. The deceased in this case is Tamil Selvan, 28 years old, contractor and L.L.B. Final Year student. He was travelling on a Maruti Esteemed Car bearing Registration No.TN.02 V 7880 from Pondicherry to Chennai along with his friends. The car was driven by the 6th respondent herein, by name Amitt Bhatt, who is the owner of the Maruti Esteemed Car insured with the Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company. According to the claimants, the driver of the car viz., Amitt Bhatt, drove the car in a rash and negligent manner and hit the palm tree and caused grievous injuries which resulted in the death of the said Tamil Selvan. On the death of Tamil Sevan, the mother aged 52 years, three brothers aged 22 years, 21 years and 18 years and one sister aged 19 years filed the claim under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for compensation in a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- stating that the deceased was working in Ambattur Clothing Company Limited and was earning a sum of Rs.10,000/- p.m.
4. In support of the claim, the mother of the deceased was examined as P.W.1 and one Jagadesh, the eye witness to the accident, was examined as P.W.2. Documents Exs.A-1 to A-6 were marked. On behalf of the insurance company one Vankatakrishnan, senior executive officer of the insurance company was examined as R.W.1. True copy of the insurance policy issued to the Maruti Esteemed Car was marked as Ex.R-1.
5. Based on the oral and documentary evidence and considering the age, income, occupation of the deceased and the age of the claimants, the Tribunal granted the following amount as compensation with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a.:-
6. C.M.A.No.4203 of 2008 (MCOP No.315 of 2007):-In the fatal accident which happened as above, another occupant of the car, Suresh, 27 years old self-employed contractor, said to be earning Rs.10,000/-p.m., while travelling in the very same Maruti Esteemed Car, driven by the third respondent herein, viz., Amitt Bhatt, suffered grievous injuries and died. The mother aged 58 years and father aged 61 years filed a claim under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for compensation in a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-.
7. In support of the claim, the mother of the deceased Suresh was examined as P.W.1 and one Jegadeesh, the eye witness to the accident, was examined as P.W.2. Documents Exs.A-1 to A-7 were marked. On behalf of the appellant/2nd respondent before the Tribunal, one Venkatakrishnan, Senior Executive Officer was examined as R.W.1 and the copy of insurance policy issued to the Maruti Esteemed Car was marked as Ex.R-1.
8. Based on the oral and documentary evidence and considering the age, income and the occupation of the deceased and the age of the claimants, the Tribunal granted the following amounts as compensation with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a.:-
9. The owner-cum-driver of the vehicle remained ex parte before the Tribunal. In both cases, the appellant before the Tribunal contended that the victims are gratuitous passengers in a private car and therefore, there is no statutory liability on the appellant insurer to cover the risk of the occupants of private car under section 147 of the Motor Veh
