Back
2020 Supreme(Mad) 1546
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. Subbiah, C. Saravanan, JJ.
The United India Insurance Company Ltd., Sreeji Chambers, Coonoor, Nilgiris & Others – Petitioner
Versus
Padmini & Others – Respondents
C.M.A. Nos. 1599 of 2017 & 1501 of 2018 & CMP.No. 8424 of 2017
Decided On : 03-11-2020
S. Arun Kumar, R. Bharanidharan, MA.P. Thangavel, Advocates.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of the deceased's status as a gratuitous passenger and the consequent liability of the Insurance Company to pay compensation.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act - Compensation - 147
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over the compensation amount to be paid by the Insurance Company for the death of a person in a road accident. The deceased was claimed to have traveled as a gratuitous passenger in a goods-carrying vehicle, leading to a claim for compensation by the deceased's family.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger in the vehicle, but the direction given by the Tribunal to the Insurance Company to pay compensation and recover it from the owner of the vehicle was set aside. The compensation amount was recalculated and enhanced by the court.
Issues: The main issue was whether the deceased traveled as a gratuitous passenger or as the owner of the goods in the vehicle, impacting the liability of the Insurance Company to pay compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger, and the direction to the Insurance Company to pay compensation and recover it from the owner of the vehicle was not justified. The court also recalculated and enhanced the compensation amount based on the deceased's income and other factors.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the claimants' appeal, allowed the Insurance Company's appeal, and directed the owner of the vehicle to deposit the enhanced compensation amount, exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability to pay compensation.
JUDGMENT :
R. Subbiah, J.
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the order and decree dated 30.11.2012 made in MCOP.No.60 of 2010 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Sub Court, Sathyamangalam, Erode District.)
These appeals are heard through Video Conferencing.
2. CMA.No.1599 of 2017 has been filed by the Insurance Company questioning the direction given by the Tribunal to pay the compensation amount, arrived by it for a sum of Rs.19,11,624/- to the respondents 1 to 3/claimants by order dated 30.11.2012 in MCOP.No.60 of 2010. The sum and substance of the case of the appellant in this appeal is that, the Tribunal having come to the conclusion that the deceased had travelled as a gratuitous passenger in the mini door auto bearing Registration No.TN-43-B-6419, ought not to have directed the Insurance Company to pay the compensation and recover the same from the owner of the Vehicle.
3. Assailing the very same order, the claimants have filed CMA1501 of 2018, questioning the findings rendered by the Tribunal that the deceased had travelled as a gratuitous passenger in the vehicle. Thus, in CMA1501 of 2018, the claimants prayed to set aside the findings of the Tribunal and consequently, inter-alia to enhance the compensation amount of Rs.19,11,624/-.
4. Since both the appeals arise out of the same order, this Court disposes of the appeals by way of this common judgment.
5. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per the ranking before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, i.e. the claimants and the respondents.
6. The case of the claimants before the Tribunal is that on 26.04.2007, the deceased Bharathan travelled in a mini door auto bearing Registration No.TN-43-B-6419, by carrying household articles and water drum and the said mini door auto belongs to one Chandra Mohan/first respondent therein, from Ariayatti to Coimbatore. While the said mini door auto was proceeding on the Mettupalayamm-Coimbatore Main Road, near Petathapuram, Annanagar, due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the mini door auto, it capsized. In the accident, the deceased, who travelled on the said mini door auto, died on the spot.
7. It is the further case of the claimants that the deceased travelled in the said auto carrying household articles and water drum from Ariayatti to Coimbatore, where his son is residing. Therefore, according to the claimants, the deceased travelled as a person accompanying goods. The further case of the claimants is that the deceased was working as Headmaster in an Elementary School and receiving a salary of Rs.15,588/-. Hence, they made a claim for a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- as compensation.
8. The said claim petition was resisted by the Insurance Company by filing a counter statement stating that it is false to state that the deceased had travelled in the mini door auto as a person accompanying the goods. The mini door auto is a goods carrying vehicle and the deceased being a passenger in the goods vehicle, is not covered under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act. In fact, the mini door auto bearing registration No.TN-43-B-6419 is not permitted to carry passengers and no additional premium was paid for the passengers. The deceased travelled only as a gratuitous passenger and hence, no insurance coverage is available to him. Therefore, the claimants are not entitled for any compensation. They also questioned the quantum of compensation claimed by the claimants. Thus, the Insurance Company sought for dismissal of the claim petition.
9. In order to prove the claim on the side of the claimants, wife of the deceased examined herself as PW1, besides examining 3 other witnesses, namely the eye-witness as PW.2 and two other witnesses as P.Ws.3 and 4 and 11 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P11. On the side of the Insurance Company, RW1, the Admi
