Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Thulukanammal & Ors. - Respondents
C.M.A. Nos. 2731 to 2734 of 2013 and MP Nos. 1, 1, 1 & 1 of 2013
Decided On : 21-04-2021
Motor Vehicles Act - Liability of Insurance Company for Unauthorized Passengers - Section 147, Section 149 - The court discussed the liability of the insurance company for unauthorized passengers in a goods vehicle, citing relevant judgments and interpretations. The court held that the insurance company is not statutorily required to cover the liability for unauthorized passengers in a goods vehicle, unless such passenger is the owner or agent of the owner of the goods accompanying such goods in the vehicle. The court allowed the appeals only in respect of the question of liability of the appellant/second respondent to pay the compensation, affirming the quantum of compensation against the owner of the vehicle and setting aside the award against the second respondent.
Fact of the Case:
The claimants sustained injuries while travelling in an auto that collided with a bus. The second respondent, the insurance company, disputed liability, claiming the claimants were unauthorized passengers in a goods vehicle and therefore not entitled to compensation.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation for unauthorized passengers in a goods vehicle, unless such passenger is the owner or agent of the owner of the goods accompanying such goods in the vehicle.
Issues: Liability of the insurance company for unauthorized passengers in a goods vehicle.
Ratio Decidendi: The insurance company is not statutorily required to cover the liability for unauthorized passengers in a goods vehicle, unless such passenger is the owner or agent of the owner of the goods accompanying such goods in the vehicle.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeals only in respect of the question of liability of the appellant/second respondent to pay the compensation, affirming the quantum of compensation against the owner of the vehicle and setting aside the award against the second respondent.
JUDGMENT :
[Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the award and decree dated 07.01.2013 made in OP.No.400 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub Judge), Ponneri.
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the award and decree dated 07.01.2013 made in OP.No.401 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub Judge), Ponneri.
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the award and decree dated 07.01.2013 made in OP.No.402 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub Judge), Ponneri.
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the award and decree dated 07.01.2013 made in OP.No.411 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub Judge), Ponneri.]
These appeals have been laid as against award and decree dated 07.01.2013 made in OP.Nos.400, 401, 402 & 411 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub Judge), Ponneri.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status before the Tribunal.
3. The case of the claimants is that on 25.07.2006, while they were travelling in an auto, the driver of the auto drove the auto in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the backside of the bus. Due to the accident, the claimants sustained grievous injuries. All the claimants filed separate claim petitions respectively.
4. Resisting the same, the second respondent filed counter stating that the claimants are unauthorised passengers. The auto is meant only for goods, and is goods carriage vehicle i.e. three wheeler load auto and it is not a share auto. As per the registration certificate of the load auto, the seating capacity is only two including the driver. Whereas, the claimants were travelling in the auto as unauthorised passengers. Therefore, the second respondent is not held to be liable for any compensation. The second respondent also disputed the injuries sustained by the respective claimants since no accident register was produced where they got admitted for treatment and sought for dismissal of the claim petitions.
5. All the claim petitions were clubbed together and jointly tried. On the side of the claimants, they examined P.W.1 to P.W.5 and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9. On the side of the respondents, they examined R.W.1 and marked Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.4. On the basis of the evidence available on records and also considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side, the Tribunal fastened entire liability on the second respondent and awarded compensation. Aggrieved by the same, the second respondent came forward with the present appeals questioning the liability.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that under Section 147 of Motor Vehicles Act, the second respondent is not statutorily required to cover liability in respect of passenger in a goods vehicle. All the claimants were unauthorised passengers and the vehicle insured with the second respondent is a goods vehicle. The registration certificate of the goods vehicle is marked as Ex.P4 and Ex.R3. The insurance policy is marked as Ex.R4. The registration certificate of the vehicle defined as goods vehicle and the insurance policy covers only for two persons including the driver. Therefore, the second respondent is not at all liable to pay any compensation. He further submitted that as per Section 147 of MV Act, the policy does not cover any person except two persons including the driver. Therefore, there is no contractual liability for the second respondent to pay any compensation. If at all any violation in the policy, as provided under Section 149 of MV Act, the insurance company may be directed to pay and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. Here, policy itself does not cover unauthorised p
Liability of insurance company for unauthorized passengers in a goods vehicle under Section 147 and Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Insurance companies are not liable for unauthorized passengers in goods vehicles under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as there is no statutory requirement to cover such risks.
The insurance company is not bound to indemnify the insurer for the loss or injury caused to a person who had traveled as a passenger in a goods vehicle, as per the provisions of the Motor Vehicles A....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the insurance policy under the Motor Vehicles Act, specifically regarding the liability of the insurer for unauthorized pa....
The liability of the insurer under a statutory policy is restricted to indemnify the insured in respect of claims made by third parties and the owner of goods or their authorized representatives who ....
The violation of provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act absolves the insurance company from liability to compensate unauthorized passengers in goods vehicles.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
