Back
2012 Supreme(Mad) 2962
High Court of Judicature at Madras
P. DEVADASS
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Perambalur District
Versus
Ayyamalai & Others
C.M.A.No.16 of 2007
Decided on: 13-07-2012
For the Appellant :M.B. Gopalan, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1 & 2, R. Asaithambi, Advocate, R3 & R4 – Exparte.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the term 'gratuitous passenger' in the context of compulsory insurance coverage under the Motor Vehicles Act and the liability of the insurance company for accidents involving violation of policy conditions.
Headnote:
Insurance - Motor Vehicles Act - Section 146, Section 94 - Compulsory insurance coverage - Liberal construction of provisions - Liability of insurance company for accident involving tractor and trailer - [GRATUITOUS PASSENGER] - [MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, SECTION 146, SECTION 94] - The court discussed the mandatory insurance coverage under the Motor Vehicles Act, the liberal construction of provisions, and the liability of the insurance company for an accident involving a tractor and trailer. It highlighted the interpretation of the term 'gratuitous passenger' and its application to the case, emphasizing the violation of policy conditions and the obligation of the insurance company to compensate the claimants as third parties.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased travelled in a tractor as a loadman and died in an accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor driver. The insurance company disputed liability, arguing that the case was not covered under the policy as the deceased travelled as a gratuitous passenger in violation of policy conditions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the deceased travelled as a loadman, not as a gratuitous passenger, and that the insurance company was liable to pay compensation to the claimants as third parties. It upheld the award of the Tribunal with modification, directing the appellant to deposit the entire compensation amount and permitting the claimants to withdraw the amount with accrued interest.
Issues: Dispute over the liability of the insurance company for the accident involving the deceased who travelled in a tractor as a loadman.
Ratio Decidendi: The deceased travelled as a loadman, not as a gratuitous passenger, and the insurance company was obligated to compensate the claimants as third parties under the Motor Vehicles Act.
Final Decision: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was dismissed, upholding the award of the Tribunal with modification. The appellant was directed to deposit the entire compensation amount, and the claimants were permitted to withdraw the amount with accrued interest, with the appellant being allowed to recover the said amount from other parties.
1. Disputing its liability, the Insurance Company directed this appeal.
2. The accident took place on 06.12.1999. The claimants, (Respondents 1 and 2 in this appeal) who are parents of the deceased in M.C.O.P.No.19 of 2000 are awarded a total compensation of Rs.2,42,800/-.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that as the deceased travelled as a gratuitous passenger, in a goods carrying vehicle, namely, tractor, this case is not covered under the policy.
4. In support of the said contention, the learned counsel for the appellant also cited the following decisions:-
i) BRANCH MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. NAGAMMAL AND OTHERS [2009 ACJ 865];
ii) THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. S.PALANISAMY AND OTHERS [C.M.A.Nos.2522 to 2533 of 2007, dated 30.08.2010] (Madras), (unreported); and
iii) THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., CUDDALORE Vs. SEENU AND OTHERS [C.M.A.Nos.1693 to 1698 of 2006, dated 06.09.2011] (Madras), (unreported).
5. The learned counsel for the appellant also contended that in the tractor, the driver and one person alone were permitted. However, at the time of accident, three persons have travelled in the tractor. The tractor is to be used for agricultural purpose. But, it has been used for a different purpose. There is violation of terms and conditions of the policy. So, the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation amount to the claimants.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimants contended that the deceased travelled in the tractor as a loadman, as per the policy, along with the driver one person can travel, although, three persons have travelled, compensation is claimed for the deceased only, there is only one claim, the deceased went as a loading and unloading coolie in the tractor connected to a trailer, carrying materials for the construction of a house for the vehicle owner. There is no policy violation. Above all, at the time of accident, there is policy coverage for the tractor and the trailer with the appellant and the claimants are third parties.
7. In GIRIRAJ PRASAD AGRAWAL AND OTHERS Vs. PARWATI DEVI AND OTHERS [2005 ACJ 1626, (F.B.) Jharkand], explaining the object behind the Motor Vehicles Act, the Full Bench observed as under:-
"12. Section 146 of the Act (old Section 94) makes the insurance of vehicle mandatory against third party risk. The object of Section 146 is to ensure insurance of all vehicles which are to be used in public place so that if a third party suffers any damage due to use of the said vehicle in public place, he would be able to get damage for the same straightaway from the Insurance Company. The statutory compulsion is made with a view to give benefit to a large number of persons who lose their lives in automobile accidents or who are injured and disabled as a result of such accident. The owner of the vehicle would not be able to meet the claims of the victims of the accident. It is with the above object that the compulsory insurance is made under the Motor Vehicles Act. The Insurance Companies are nationalised with a view to see that they toe the line of the Directive Principles of State Policy under Article 39 of the Constitution of India and also fulfil the obligations under the Motor Vehicles Act."
8. The Motor Vehicles Act particularly the provisions relating to compensation for the victims of road accidents and the requirement of compulsory insurance coverage are meant for the benefit of the victims and the members of their family, therefore, such provisions are to be liberally construed [see DIVISIONAL MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. JASODA MOHANTA [AIR 1996 Ori 120]].
9. On 06.12.1999, Saravanan, who was then 19 years old, travelled in the tractor belonging to 3rd respondent as his coolie. The trailer belonging to 4th respondent has been connected with the tractor. Both the tractor and the trailer were insured with the appellant. The evidence of P.W.2, Singaravel, disclosed that at the time of acciden
