Back
2010 Supreme(Mad) 4748
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.S. KARNAN
Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd.
Versus
Sumathi & Others
C.M.A.No.2159 of 2002
Decided On :11-01-2010
For Appellant:S.Janarthanam for M/s.M.S.Krishnan, Advocates.
For Respondents:R1 to R3, N. Rajan, Advocate.
The liability of the insurance company for compensation to the legal heirs of a deceased pillion rider and the interpretation of insurance coverage for passengers under act-only policies.
Headnote:
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - Motor Vehicles Act - Sections 110(A), 92(A), 147(1) - The judgment discusses the liability of the insurance company for compensation to the legal heirs of a deceased pillion rider involved in a motor accident. The court considered the interpretation of the term 'any person' in the context of insurance coverage for passengers and the applicability of act-only policies to pillion riders. The court confirmed the award and decree passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, holding the respondents jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased was a pillion rider in a motorcycle accident and the legal heirs claimed compensation under Sections 110(A) and 92(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Tribunal found the accident to be caused by the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent and awarded compensation to the petitioners.
Finding of the Court:
The court confirmed the award and decree passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, holding the respondents jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.
Issues: The issues included the cause of the accident, entitlement to compensation, and relief for the petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the liability of the insurance company for compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased pillion rider, the interpretation of the term 'any person' in insurance coverage, and the applicability of act-only policies to pillion riders.
Final Decision: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was dismissed, and the award and decree passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal were confirmed.
The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/third respondent against the Award and Decree, dated 05.04.2002, made in M.C.O.P.No.45 of 1999, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Krishnagiri, awarding a compensation of Rs.3,55,000/- with 9% interest per annum, from the date of filing petition till the date of payment of compensation.
2. Aggrieved by the said Award and Decree, the appellant/third respondent has filed the above appeal praying to set aside the award and decree passed by the Tribunal.
3. The short facts of the case are as follows: On 23.06.1989, the (deceased) Sekar along with Constable (1035 CPI) V.Veeramani were going in a Yamaha Motor Cycle TDD 9314 from Donkanimottah to Kotunchentrammon Official duties. The motorcycle was driven by Veeramani and the (deceased) Sekar was travelling as a pillion rider. The said vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner, and near Marakatta Village, the vehicle dashed against a stone in the road and capsized. Due to the accident, the (deceased) Sekar sustained injuries in between his left check and eye and another injury on his right fore arm and blood oozed out from both his ears. He was immediately taken to the Donkanikottai Government Hospital, but he succumbed to his injuries.
4. As such, the first respondent, the driver of the vehicle, the second respondent, the owner of the vehicle and the third respondent, the insurer of the vehicle, the fourth and fifth respondents, the parents of the deceased, are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners, who are the legal heirs of the (deceased) Sekar. The petitioners have claimed a compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of payment of compensation, from the second and third respondents, under Sections 110(A) and 92 (A) of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act IV of 1953).
5. The third respondent, in his Counter has resisted the claim stating that the vehicle involved in the accident has been covered by it under an Act Policy, which covers only third party risks and does not cover the pillion rider. No premium has been paid covering the risk of the pillion rider. The third respondent has further submitted that the parents of the deceased Sekar have filed a petition for compensation, the death of their son in M.C.O.P.No.592/1992, before the Additional Sub-ordinate Judge and was dismissed for default on 07.10.1999. Further, it has been submitted that on the date of accident took place, the rider of the motorcycle was driving it in a careful manner and at moderate speed. On seeing a lorry coming in the opposite direction, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, the rider of the motorcycle had turned the vehicle towards the extreme left of the road, wherein there was a shallow pit and resultantly the vehicle had capsized. It has also been submitted that the motorcycle rider did not have a valid driving licence at the time of accident and hence the third respondent had prayed for dismissal of claim petition with costs.
6. The first respondent in his Counter has denied the claim stating that the manner of the accident as alleged in the claim was not correct. It has been submitted that he had driven the vehicle in a careful manner and that it was only due to bursting of the front tyre of vehicle that both he and the (deceased) Sekar were thrown out of the vehicle and had sustained injuries. As such, it has been prayed that the claim as against him, is not maintainable and has to be dismissed with costs.
7. The fourth and fifth respondents did not give any Counter to the claim petition.
8. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed three issues for the consideration namely:
(i) Was the accident caused due to the rash and negligent driving by the first respondent?
(ii) Are the petitioners entitled to get compensation?
(iii) To what other relief
