Back
2011 Supreme(Mad) 2956
High Court of Judicature at Madras
C.S. KARNAN
The New India Assurance Company Limited, Chennai & Others
Versus
Palanimalai & Another
C.M.A.Nos. 2971, 2972, 2973 of 2008 & M.P.Nos.1 of 2008 & 1 of 2009
Decided on : 24-06-2011
For the Appellant:S. Manohar, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1 - C. Munusamy, Advocate.
The main legal point established is that passengers traveling with goods in a vehicle may not be considered gratuitous passengers but owners of the goods, impacting the liability of the insurer and the compensation awarded.
Headnote:
Gratuitous Passenger - Motor Accident Claims - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.147, S.149(4), S.149(5) - [S.147, S.149(4), S.149(5)] - The court held that the claimants, who had traveled in the vehicle along with goods, were not gratuitous passengers but owners of the goods. The court confirmed the award of compensation to the claimant, including the 'pay and recovery' provision.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a claim against the respondents for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. The Tribunal held that the accident was caused by the negligent driving of the mini lorry driver and that the petitioner traveled as a 'gratuitous passenger'. The Tribunal awarded compensation to the petitioner, directing the second respondent to deposit the amount and permitting recovery from the first respondent.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the claimants were not gratuitous passengers but owners of the goods they traveled with. The court confirmed the compensation award, including the 'pay and recovery' provision.
Issues: The issues considered were the liability of the insurer for the claimant's injuries and the nature of the claimants' status as passengers in the vehicle.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the claimants were not gratuitous passengers but owners of the goods they traveled with, based on the evidence presented. The court confirmed the compensation award, including the 'pay and recovery' provision.
Final Decision: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was dismissed, and the Award and Decree passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal were confirmed. The court imposed a condition on the appellant to deposit the entire compensation amount with accrued interest to the credit of the Tribunal.
1. The above appeal has been filed by the appellant / New India Assurance Company Limited against the decree and judgment dated 12.06.2006, made in M.C.O.P.No.4144 of 2001 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Vth Court of Small Causes, Madras.
2. The short facts of the case are as follows:-
On 01.07.2001, at about 22.30 hours, while the petitioner was travelling, along with others, as owner of goods, in Tata mini lorry bearing Registration No.TN55-C-3556 on 100 feet road, and when the van was opposite to Umayal Kalyana Mandapam near Madhavaram, in order to avoid hitting a cow, the driver of the said mini lorry swerved the vehicle and due to the sudden brake and the road being slippery due to rain, lost control and so the mini lorry turned upside down. As a result of this accident, the petitioner has filed a claim against the respondents for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-. The first respondent is the owner of the said mini lorry and the second respondent is its insurer.
3. The second respondent, in his counter has resisted the claim stating that the petitioner who had alleged that he had travelled in the said mini lorry is not expected to travel in the mini lorry, which is not a passenger vehicle and hence he is only a gratuitous passenger. Hence, the second respondent is not liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. The second respondent had also denied all the other averments in the claim and has stated that the petitioner has to prove it through documentary evidence. It has also been stated that the Insurance Policy for the mini lorry stands in the name of Shivakumar and he has not been added as a necessary party, it renders the claim not maintainable.
4. As 9 other claim petitions in (M.C.O.P.Nos.4756, 4144, 4315 to 4322 of 2011) were filed, against the respondents, by the other occupants and the load-man of the said mini lorry for injuries sustained by them in the said accident, the Tribunal conducted a joint trial, recorded common evidence and passed common judgment.
5. On the averments of both parties, the Tribunal had framed two issues for consideration in this case, namely;
“(i) Who is responsible for the accident?
(ii) Are the petitioners entitled to get compensation? If so, what is the quantum of compensation?”
6. On the petitioners side nine documents were marked and twenty eight documents were marked. On the side of the respondents side one witness was examined and three documents were marked.
7. It was admitted on both sides that the mini lorry bearing Registration No.TN55-C-3556 was involved in the said accident on 01.07.2001 and that the accident had occurred opposite to Umayal Kalyana Mandapam on the 100 feet road; It was also admitted that the mini lorry belonged to one Parimalam and that the mini lorry had been insured with the second respondent.
8. PW1 adduced evidence that while he was travelling in the mini lorry, as owner of vegetables, a cow had suddenly crossed the road. On seeing this, the driver of the lorry took the mini lorry to the extreme left of the road and consequently hit the wall on the median of the road. As a result, the lorry had capsized. He had stated that the accident took place only due to negligence of the driver of the mini lorry. From scrutiny of Ex.P5, the First Information Report, it is seen that a complaint had been registered against the driver of the lorry. Pursuant to this, a case had been filed against the driver of the lorry in the Criminal Court as is evident after scrutinizing Ex.P6. Further, no contra evidence had been let in on the part of the respondents' side to deny that the accident had been caused by the negligence of the driver of the mini lorry and the driver of the mini lorry had also not adduced evidence to prove that he had not been negligent. Hence, the Tribunal held that the accident had been caused by the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the mini lorry. Based on the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the petitioner did
