Back
2019 Supreme(Mad) 1264
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. MAHADEVAN, J.
Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Erappa and Others – Respondents
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3155 of 2005, C.M.P. No. 16289 of 2005
Decided On : 06-06-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : N. Vijayaraghavan.
For the Respondent: K. Sundaramurthy.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation when the deceased was authorized to travel in the vehicle and the policy covered the risk of employees connected with the operation of the vehicle.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act - Liability to pay compensation - Section 173 - New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Raman and Others, 2015 ACJ 140
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a claim petition for compensation in respect of the death of an individual in a tractor accident. The Insurance Company challenged the liability to pay compensation, arguing that the deceased traveled as an unauthorized passenger and was not covered under the policy.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the deceased had traveled in the capacity as a Loadman, authorized to travel in the vehicle, and therefore, the Legal Representatives were entitled to compensation from the Insurance Company.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation for the death of the deceased who traveled as a Loadman in the vehicle.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and the decision in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Raman and Others, 2015 ACJ 140, which held that the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation when the deceased was working as a coolie and the policy covered the risk of coolies and other employees connected with the operation of loading/unloading of the vehicle.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the Tribunal's award of compensation and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the amount of compensation along with interest to the claimants.
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree, dated 12.01.2005, made in M.C.O.P. No. 318 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2 (Incharge), Dharmapuri District at Krishnagiri.
1. This Appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company, challenging the liability to pay compensation of Rs. 1,99,000/-.
2. Brief facts, which are essential to appreciate the contentions raised by the Insurance Company, are as follows:-
Erappa, Pappamma, Santhamma and Thirumalesh, aged 55, 47, 35 and 19, (father, mother, wife and son) respectively, all the four together, have filed a claim petition for compensation in respect of the death of Thimmappa, in an accident on 05.03.2003. The deceased Thimmappa, aged 40, an agriculturist as well as doing loading and unloading coolie in Tractors, earning a sum of Rs. 4,000/- per month, died in the accident on 05.03.2003. The accident is said to have taken place when the deceased was travelling, as Loadman, in the vehicle (Tractor) bearing Registration No. TN-29W-3042, belonging to the fifth respondent herein, namely, M. Ranganathan, the first respondent before the Tribunal. It is alleged that the tractor was driven in a rash and negligent manner and thus Thimmappa fell from the moving vehicle. On account of the same, he sustained fatal injuries on his vital organs. Immediately, he was taken to Andal Hospital at Hosur and admitted as inpatient. Despite best treatments, he died on the same day, i.e. on 05.03.2003 at about 03.55 pm. So alleging, the claim petition, claiming a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- has been filed as against the owner/fifth respondent and Insurance Company/appellant herein of the tractor.
3. The Insurance Company, as the second respondent before the Tribunal, filed the counter opposing the claim made by the Legal Representatives on grounds that the deceased travelled in the tractor as the unauthorized passenger; and the policy does not cover either coolie or any of the passengers and therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation.
4. The Tribunal, on a consideration of the materials placed before it, came to the conclusion that the deceased had travelled in the tractor in the capacity as Loadman and not in the capacity as unauthorized passenger and therefore, the deceased, being a person, authorised to travel in the vehicle and hence, the Legal Representatives of the deceased are entitled to compensation from the Insurance Company. By holding so, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,99,000/- as compensation payable to the Legal Representatives of the deceased. Aggrieved over the same, the present Appeal has been filed.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company would submit that the deceased had travelled in the mud guard portion of the tractor and as there was no seating capacity for the tractor, it was clearly a travel, which is unauthorized and therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation.
6. The learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 and 4/claimants, by relying upon the terms and conditions of the Insurance policy, would submit that, as the person has travelled in the vehicle as the Loadman/coolie, there is coverage under the policy and therefore, the Insurance Company must be directed to pay the entire amount of compensation and in support of the said contention, the learned counsel relied upon the decision reported in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Raman and Others, 2015 ACJ 140.
7. This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and perused the materials available on record.
8. From the narration of facts and events and evidence available on record, it is clear that the deceased had travelled in the tractor in the capacity as Loadman and not in the capacity as unauthorized passenger and therefore, the deceased, being a person, authorised to travel in
