Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2001 Supreme(Mad) 1172

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P. Shanmugam, K. Raviraja Pandian, JJ.
M/s. United India Insurance Company Limited, Bangalore
Versus
Kamala Mangalal Vayani and others
A.A.O.No.911 of 1997, A.A.O.No.912 of 1997, A.A.O.No.951 of 1997, A.A.O.No.952 of 1997, A.A.O.No.953 of 1997 and C.M.P.No.9586 of 1997, C.M.P.No.9587 of 1997, C.M.P.No.9884 of 1997, C.M.P.No.9885 of 1997, C.M.P.No.9886 of 1997
Decided On : 5th October, 2001

Advocates Appeared:
K.S. Narasimhan, for Appellant.
V. Raghavachari, for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 in A.A.O.No.911 of 1997 and C.M.P.No.9586 of 1997 and for Respondent No.1 in A.A.O.Nos.912 and 951 to 953 of 1997 and C.M.P.Nos.9587 and 9884 to 9886 of 1997.
S. Manohar, for Respondent No.6 in A.A.O.No.911 of 1997 and C.M.P.No.9586 of 1997 and for Respondent No.4 in A.A.O.Nos.912 and 951 to 953 of 1997 and C.M.P.Nos.9587 and 9884 to 9886 of 1997.

Vehicle having no permit for plying the vehicle as a public transport vehicle.

Headnote:Motor Vehicles Act, 1939—Sections 66, 69 and 141—Motor accident—Claim petition by legal representative of the deceased as well as other injured passengers—Award of compensation by Tribunal—Held, owner of the mini bus contravened the specific conditions of the Insurance Policy—Moreover, policy obtained on misrepresentation—Insurance Company cannot be fastened with liability.

ORDER

P. Shanmugam, J.:

The second respondent/Insurance company before the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal is the appellant herein.

2. The brief facts of the case are stated below:

A Matador Van bearing Registration No.GDR-1533, owned by one G. Ravi, the fourth respondent herein, was insured with the appellant Insurance company. On 27.7.1990 at 7 p.m. the said vehicle had a head-on collision with a lorry bearing Registration No.TNM-7380 belonging to one S.Sekar, the fifth respondent herein and insured with the sixth respondent Insurance company. On account of this accident, the following O.Ps. were preferred, the particulars of the claims made thereunder and the amount awarded by the Tribunal in its order dated 16.5.1996 made in the O.Ps. being given below:

Sl. No. O.P.No. Amount claimed Towards (Rs.) Amount awarded (Rs.)

1. 234 of 1995 51,21,000 Death of one Mangalal Vayani

by his L.Rs. 21,61,965

2. 235 of 1995 2,00,000 Injures sustained 84,000

3. 236 of 1995 2,50,000 Injures sustained 80,000

4. 237 of 1995 2,00,000 Injures sustained 84,000

5. 238 of 1995 2,50,000 Injures sustained 1,01,000

The present appeals are against the above awards.

3. The only question that was raised and argued by the counsel for the appellant in all these appeals is that the insurance company has no liability to indemnity the fourth respondent, the owner of the Matador Van and therefore, they should be absolved of their liability to pay compensation to the claimants.

4. The facts necessary for deciding this question are stated hereunder:

The fourth respondent G. Ravi is the owner of the Matador Van/Mini Bus bearing Registration No.GDR-1533. The mini bus was engaged by the first respondent Mrs. Kamala Mangalal Vayani, who was travelling along with her husband, children and other relatives, totalling 13 members, in the van for the purpose of visiting various important places in South India. During their journey from Bangalore to Kanyakumari via. Villupuram, the van met with a head-on collision with a lorry bearing Registration No.TNM-7380 near Kandamanady Village. The owner of the van remained ex parte. Admittedly, the van did not have a permit. The vehicle is covered by an insurance policy with the appellant insurance company covering a period from 31.3.1990 to 30.3.1991 and it is marked as Ex.A-19. The policy, under the heading Limitations as to use, states as follows:

“The policy covers the vehicle only under a permit within the meaning of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 or such a carriage falling under Sub-sec.(3) of Sec.66 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The policy does not cover for:

(a) organised racing; or

(b) speed testing.”

As per this policy, the maximum licensed carrying capacity of the vehicle, including the driver and the conductor is 10 + 1.

5. The appellant had issued a notice dated 16.11.1995 (Ex.B.1) calling upon the owner of the vehicle G.Ravi, the fourth respondent herein, to prove that he had a valid registration and permit before the date of the accident. In the said notice, the insurance company pointed out to the fourth respondent that they understand that he had contravened the rules and regulations of the insurance policy by running a tourist van without a valid permit exceeding the capacity of passengers. It is also stated that they came to know that the Bangalore Regional Transport Officer (Central) rejected his application for registration of the vehicle as taxicab and informed him that the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation arising out of the accident and that there is no vicarious liability since he had contravened the policy regulation also. Though the said notice was acknowledged by him under Ex.B-2, there was no reply and he also remained ex parte in the O.P. The appellant was able to get a certified copy of the proceedings of the Regional Transport Authority, Bangalore (Central) ordering rejection of the application of the van owner and filed it as Ex.B-3. As per these proceedings dated 7.7.1990, the Regional Transpo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document