Back
2015 Supreme(Mad) 946
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. KIRUBAKARAN, J.
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Thiruvallur – Appellant
Versus
Jagan @ Jagadeesan & Another – Respondent
C.M.A.No. 105 of 2015
Decided On : 18-02-2015
For the Appellant:Harini, N. Vijayaraghavan, Advocates.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory insurance coverage for vehicles under the Motor Vehicles Act, the need for prompt renewal of insurance policies, and the lack of mechanisms to verify the same.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act - Insurance Coverage - Section 149, Section 147, Section 146 - The court discussed the mandatory insurance coverage for vehicles under the Motor Vehicles Act, emphasizing the need for prompt renewal of insurance policies and the lack of mechanisms to verify the same. The court also highlighted the possibility of issuing life-time insurance coverage for vehicles and the need for amending the Motor Vehicles Act and Insurance Act to ensure foolproof insurance coverage for every vehicle.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, an insurance company, challenged an award made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in favor of the respondent who sustained injuries in a road accident involving a tanker lorry. The appellant claimed that there was no insurance coverage for the offending vehicle at the time of the accident.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the lorry was driven rashly and negligently, resulting in the accident, and upheld the award made by the Tribunal. The court also emphasized the need for mandatory insurance coverage for vehicles and the lack of mechanisms to verify prompt renewal of insurance policies.
Issues: The issues involved the lack of insurance coverage for the offending vehicle at the time of the accident, the assessment of disability, and the prompt renewal of insurance policies by vehicle owners.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, particularly Section 149, Section 147, and Section 146, which highlight the mandatory insurance coverage for vehicles and the need for prompt renewal of insurance policies. The court also emphasized the need for amending the Motor Vehicles Act and Insurance Act to ensure foolproof insurance coverage for every vehicle.
Final Decision: The court upheld the award made by the Tribunal in favor of the respondent and emphasized the need for mandatory insurance coverage for vehicles and mechanisms to verify prompt renewal of insurance policies.
1. Though India has got lesser number of vehicles as compared to United States of America, more road accidents are occurring. Whereas, in United State of America, lesser number of road accidents are occurring. The following details would show that the number of accidents from 2002 to 2013.
Number of road accidents and number of persons involved in India from 2002 to 2013
Year
Number of accidents
Number of persons
Accident severity
Total
Fatal
Killed
Injured
2002
40,7487
73,650 (18.1)
84,674
4,08,711
20.8
2003
406726
73,589 (18.1)
85,998
4,35,122
21.1
2004
429910
79,357 (18.5)
92,618
4,64,521
21.5
2005
439255
83,491 (19.0)
94,968
4,65,282
21.6
2006
460920
93,917 (20.4)
1,05,749
4,96,481
22.9
2007
479216
1,01,161(21.1)
1,14,444
5,13,340
23.9
2008
484704
1,06,591(22.0)
1,19,860
5,23,193
24.7
2009
486384
1,10,993(22.8)
1,25,660
5,15,458
25.8
2010
499628
1,19,558(23.9)
1,34,513
5,27,512
26.9
2011 (p)
497686
1,21,618(24.4)
1,42,485
5,11,394
28.6
2012
490383
1,23,093(25.1)
1,38,258
5,09,667
28.2
2013
486476
1,22,589(25.1)
1,37,592
4,94,893
28.3
2. It is seen from the above, every year the number of accidents is going up as more number of vehicles are added to the traffic in India.
In view of the above position, it should be everybody's endeavor to prevent accidents and ply vehicles on the road with relevant insurance coverage and to see that the accident claim awards are paid in time easily as per Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 without any problem to the victims of the road accidents. This case is an example which would go to show that act policy was not in force when the accident occurred.
3. One Jagan @ Jagadeesan, the 1st respondent sustained injuries in the accident which occurred on 30.01.2012, when the Tanker lorry, insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., the appellant herein, driven rashly and negligently, hit from behind, while he was riding his motorcycle from Ponneri to Thatchur Koot Road Redhills road and therefore, the claim petition for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- was filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ponneri.
4. The Tribunal, on contest, found that the lorry was driven rashly and negligently resulting in the accident. The 1st respondent sustained fracture in the right leg, fracture in right thigh, Grade II B compound fracture of both bone of right leg and wound debridement and external fixation were done. He was hospitalised for 17 days. In view of that, P.W.2, Doctor assessed the disability at 65%. However, the Tribunal, considering the nature of injuries, fixed the disability at 45% and awarded a sum of Rs.2,24,500/-. The said award is being challenged before this Court by the Insurance Company.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that there is no insurance coverage for the offending vehicle, namely, Tanker Lorry. The insurance coverage expired on 17.11.2011 whereas the accident occurred on 30.01.2012 and therefore, liability should not have been fastened on the Insurance Company.
6. The above facts would only show that the Act policy as per Section 147 in Chapter XI of Motor Vehicles Act was not in force when the accide
