Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V.M.VELUMANI, J.
The Manager HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Ltd.- Appellant
Vs.
Kannamma - Respondents
C.M.A.No.4796 of 2019 and C.M.P.No.27893 of 2019
Decided On : 24-02-2020
For the Appellant : Mr.N.Somasundaar
For The Respondent: Mr.K.Varadhakamaraj
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the insured for the loss or injury caused to a person who had travelled as a passenger in a goods vehicle, emphasizing the distinction between statutory and contractual insurance and the need for additional premium to cover risks beyond the statutory obligation.
Headnote:
Insurance - Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - Regulation 28 of Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989, Section 2(14), 2(44), 2(46) of Motor Vehicles Act - [2018(2)TN MAC 731, 2007(1)TN MAC 205, 2009(2)TN MAC 20, 2012(1)TN MAC 545, 2004(2)TN MAC 123, 2013(1)TN MAC 615] - The court discussed the liability of the insurance company in cases involving passengers travelling in a tractor, interpreting relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and Regulations. The court held that the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the insured for the loss or injury caused to a person who had travelled as a passenger in a goods vehicle. It also emphasized that a tractor is not constructed to carry any load other than equipment used for the purpose of propulsion, and therefore, passengers other than the driver are unauthorized. The court referred to various judgments to support its decision, highlighting the distinction between statutory and contractual insurance, and the need for additional premium to cover risks beyond the statutory obligation.
Fact of the Case:
The respondents 1 and 2 filed a claim petition seeking compensation for the death of their mother in a tractor accident. The appellant-Insurance Company denied liability, arguing that the deceased travelled as an unauthorized passenger and that the insurance policy did not cover her. The Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the tractor driver and directed the appellant to pay compensation. The appellant appealed against this decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the deceased travelled as an unauthorized passenger in violation of Regulation 28 of Rules of the Road Regulations, and the insurance company was not liable to pay compensation. It emphasized that the insurance policy did not cover the deceased's liability and referred to relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and Regulations to support its decision.
Issues: The issues involved the liability of the insurance company for the death of a passenger in a tractor accident, the interpretation of relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and Regulations, and the distinction between statutory and contractual insurance.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the insured for the loss or injury caused to a person who had travelled as a passenger in a goods vehicle. It emphasized that a tractor is not constructed to carry any load other than equipment used for the purpose of propulsion, and therefore, passengers other than the driver are unauthorized. The court referred to various judgments to support its decision, highlighting the distinction between statutory and contractual insurance, and the need for additional premium to cover risks beyond the statutory obligation.
Final Decision: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was allowed, setting aside the portion of the award directing the appellant to pay the compensation. The 3rd respondent was directed to deposit the awarded sum, and the respondents 1 and 2 were permitted to withdraw their respective share of the award amount. The appellant-Insurance Company was permitted to withdraw the award amount if already deposited.
JUDGMENT :
The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the appellant-Insurance Company challenging the award dated 31.07.2019 made in M.C.O.P.No.68 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special District Court No.I, Tiruvallur.
2. The appellant/Insurance Company is the 2nd respondent in M.C.O.P.No.68 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special District Court No.I, Tiruvallur. The respondents 1 & 2 filed the said claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- as compensation for the death of their mother Kowsalya who died in the accident that took place on 22.04.2017.
3. According to the respondents 1 and 2, on 22.04.2017 at about 1.15 p.m while the deceased kowsalya was returning home in the Tractor on Nagari- Nagalapuram Road, in front of Prodential Sugar Factory, near Nindra cross road, the driver of the Tractor drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, at a high speed and dashed against the speed breaker and caused the accident. In the accident, the said kowsalya sustained grievous injuries and she was taken to Government Hospital, Puthur, Andra Pradesh. Inspite of treatment, the said kowsalya succumbed to injuries on the same day. At the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 51 years and was doing Agricultural work and earning a sum of Rs.500/- per day. Therefore, the respondents 1 and 2 being the daughters of the deceased filed the claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- as compensation against the 3rd respondent and appellant-Insurance Company, being the owner and insurer of the Tractor respectively.
4. The 3rd respondent, owner of the Tractor remained ex-parte before the Tribunal.
5. The appellant-Insurance Company, being the insurer of the Tractor belonging to the 3rd respondent filed counter statement and denied various averments made by the respondents 1 and 2. According to the appellant-Insurance Company, the accident has not occurred as alleged by the respondents 1 and 2. According to the appellant-Insurance Company the deceased has travelled in the Tractor as an unauthorized passenger and only due to her negligent act, she sustained fatal injuries and died. The respondents 1 and 2 have to prove that the accident has occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Tractor belonging to the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent’s Tractor was not insured with the appellant-Insurance Company and there was no valid insurance policy at the time of accident and also the driver of the Tractor was not possessing valid driving licence and badge endorsement at the time of accident. There is no valid permit and fitness certificate to the 3rd respondent’s Tractor. The fitness certificate expired on 16.07.2016 and hence, the appellant-Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the 3rd respondent and pay compensation to the respondents 1 and 2. The respondents 1 and 2 have to prove that they are the legal heirs of the deceased by producing valid documents. The respondents 1 and 2 are married daughters of the deceased Kowsalya and hence, they are not the dependants of the deceased. The respondents 1and 2 have to prove the age, avocation and income of the deceased by producing valid documents. In any event, the quantum of compensation claimed by the respondents 1 and 2 is highly excessive and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
6. Before the Tribunal, the first respondent examined herself as P.W.1 and one Prasanth, who is the eyewitness to the accident was examined as P.W.2 and 7 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P7. On behalf of the appellant-Insurance Company, one Kishore Kumar, Junior Assistant of RTO, Thirupathy was examined as R.W.1 and one Arunachalam, Legal Manager of the appellant-Insurance Company was examined as R.W.2 and 8 documents were marked as Exs.R1 to R8.
7. The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence held that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Tractor belon
