Back
2020 Supreme(Mad) 2057
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
The Manager, M/s. IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited, T. Nagar – Appellant
Versus
Vanamayil(Deceased) & Others –Respondents
C.M.A.Nos. 2631 & 2629 of 2019, 1279 to 1289 of 2020 & C.M.P.Nos. 12801 & 12786 of 2019, 9116, 9119, 9120, 9122, 9123, 9126, 9129, 9131, 9132, 9133, 9134 of 2020
Decided On : 25-09-2020
For the Appellant :S. Arunkumar, Advocate
For the Respondents:T. Gopinath, Advocate
The main legal point established is that the insurance company cannot be held liable to pay compensation for unauthorized passengers in a goods vehicle due to statutory violation and lack of policy coverage.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act - Liability of Insurance Company - Section 147(1)(b)(i)
Fact of the Case:
The appeal was filed against the order and decree of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, which held the driver of a goods vehicle responsible for an accident and directed the insurance company to pay compensation and recover it from the owner of the vehicle.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the insurance company cannot be held liable to pay compensation for unauthorized passengers in a goods vehicle due to statutory violation and lack of policy coverage.
Issues: The issues involved the liability of the insurance company to pay compensation for an accident involving unauthorized passengers in a goods vehicle.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that under Section 147(1)(b)(i) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the insurance company cannot be held liable for compensation in case of statutory violation and lack of policy coverage for unauthorized passengers in a goods vehicle.
Final Decision: The court set aside the orders and decrees of the lower courts, allowed the appeals, and directed the owner of the vehicle to deposit the entire award amount with accrued interest for the claimants.
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the order and decree dated 03.09.2018 made in M.C.O.P.No.71 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Chidambaram.)
Common Judgment:
1. The issues involved in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are one and the same and hence, they are disposed of by this common judgment.
2. These Civil Miscellaneous Petitions are filed, challenging the orders and decrees passed by the Sub Court, Chidambaram and II Additional District and Sessions Court, Chidambaram in the following M.C.O.Ps:
| M.C.O.P. Nos. | Dated | C.M.A.Nos. |
| M.C.O.P.No.71/2014 | 03.09.2018 | C.M.A.No.2631/2019 |
| M.C.O.P.No.173/2013 | 03.09.2018 | C.M.A.No.2629/2019 |
| M.C.O.P.No.86/2018 | 01.10.2019 | C.M.A.No.1279/2020 |
| M.C.O.P.No.94/2018 | 01.10.2019 | C.M.A.No.1280/2020 |
| M.C.O.P.No.97/2018 | 01.10.2019 | C.M.A.No.1281/2020 |
| M.C.O.P.No.88/2018 | 01.10.2019 | C.M.A.No.1282/2020 |
| M.C.O.P.No.93/2018 | 01.10.2019 | C.M.A.No.1283/2020 |
| M.C.O.P.No.87/2018 | 01.10.2019 | C.M.A.No.1284/2020 |
| M.C.O.P.No.91/2018 | 01.10.2019 | C.M.A.No.1285/2020 |
| M.C.O.P.No.92/2018 | 01.10.2019 | C.M.A.No.1286/2020 |
| M.C.O.P.No.85/2018 | 01.10.2019 | C.M.A.No.1287/2020 |
| M.C.O.P.No.83/2018 | 01.10.2019 | C.M.A.No.1288/2020 |
| M.C.O.P.No.89/2018 | 01.10.2019 | C.M.A.No.1289/2020 |
3. In all the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals, M/s. IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited is the appellant and the appeals are filed, questioning the liability of the Insurance company to pay compensation.
4. The accident occurred on 05.01.2013 at about 01.00 p.m. near Veeraanam Lake, Kattumannarkoil Main Road. Orathur Police Station registered a case in Crime No.03/2013 and 28 persons travelled in the Goods Vehicle, sustained injuries and one person died. The Claim Petitions are filed. The Tribunal adjudicated the issues. The Tribunal arrived a conclusion that the Driver of the Goods Vehicle namely TATA ACE Van bearing Registration No.TN-38-BB-9788, came in a rash and negligent manner, got capsized and therefore, the Driver of the TATA ACE Van is responsible for the cause of the accident. The people, who were travelling in the Goods Vehicle/TATA ACE Van, sustained grievous injuries and one person died and the Tribunal awarded compensation and further, directed the appellant/Insurance company to pay the compensation and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. Thus, the liability in entirety was fixed on the owner of the vehicle and it was established before the Tribunal that the Driver of the TATA ACE Van had driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and the vehicle got capsized and the accident occurred. There is no dispute with reference to the factum regarding the accident. The witnesses also categorically deposed that 28 persons were travelled in the TATA ACE Van and they were proceeding to attend condolence. These facts are admitted by the witnesses themselves. However, the Tribunal arrived a conclusion that the appellant/Insurance company has to pay the compensation and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle.
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/Insurance company reiterated that awards of the Tribunal are perverse and in violation of the statutory provisions. Question of Pay and Recovery would not arise in the present cases as there is a statutory violation. It is not the case as if, the Policy conditions are violated. In view of Section 147(1)(b)(i) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the goods carrier cannot be utilized for passengers. It is further contended that even under the Insurance policy, there is no coverage for the passengers in the goods carrier. Only two persons are covered under the Insurance policy and other passengers are not covered under the policy. Therefore, it is not only a violation of statutory provisions, but a
