Back
2025 Supreme(Mad) 4798
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. SOUNTHAR, J.
M/s. IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd. – Appellant
Vs.
G.Munusamy - Respondent
C.M.A.No.1101 of 2022 and C.M.P.No.8070 of 2022
Decided on : 30-04-2025
For the Appellant : Mr.S.Arunkumar
For the Respondent: Mr.K.Premkumar
An insurer is liable to pay compensation to the cleaner of a goods vehicle under the policy if the deceased is not deemed a gratuitous passenger, supported by sufficient evidence of employment.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act - Insurance Policy - Liability of insurer for death of cleaner in an accident involving a goods vehicle - Insurer challenged liability claiming deceased was a gratuitous passenger - Tribunal held insurer liable based on evidence of deceased's employment as cleaner - Proper appreciation of policy limitations crucial. (Paras 5, 9, 11, 13)
(B) Negligence - Claimants established negligence of mini lorry driver in accident resulting in death of deceased. (Para 2)
Facts of the case:
The claimants filed a petition for compensation after their son died in a road accident while traveling in a mini lorry. The accident was attributed to the negligence of the driver. The insurer contended the deceased was a gratuitous passenger; however, the claimants argued he was employed as a cleaner.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal ruled the accident was due to the driver’s negligence, and the insurer was liable to pay Rs.9,97,000/- as compensation.
Issues: The main questions involved whether the deceased was a gratuitous passenger or an employee, and the insurer's liability under the policy.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found adequate evidence supporting that the deceased was a cleaner, thus entitled to compensation under the insurance policy. The Tribunal's findings were affirmed, and the insurer was held liable.
Result: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. deceased's death in mini lorry accident (Para 2) |
| 2. dispute over liability and passenger classification (Para 3 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. evidence supports cleaner's role, not gratuitous passenger (Para 4 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. insurance policy limits and liability analysis (Para 12 , 13) |
| 5. appeal dismissed; tribunal's ruling upheld (Para 14) |
JUDGMENT :
S.SOUNTHAR, J.
1. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the Insurer challenging the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, IV Court of Small Causes, Chennai in M.C.O.P.No.4031 of 2010, dated 03.02.2022.
2. The respondents 1 and 2 are the claimants. It was their case before the Tribunal that their son namely M.Mohan died in a road accident that had taken place on 10.09.2010 involving mini lorry bearing Registration No.TN-21-D-8010 belonged to the 3rd respondent and insured with the appellant-insurance company. According to the claimants, the deceased was travelling in a Mini lorry belonged to the 3rd respondent and driver of the mini lorry had driven the vehicle in rash and negligent manner and applied sudden break in a turning. As a result of rash and negligent driving, the vehicle got capsized and deceased sustained grievous head injury and died in hospital. Therefore, a claim petition was filed seeking compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-.
3. The 3rd respondent-owner of the mini lorry remained exparte before the Tribunal and the claim petition was contested by the insurer of the mini lorry mainly on the ground that deceased travelled in a goods vehicle as a gratuitous passenger along with 25 other persons loaded with Vinayaga Idol and therefore, the Insurance Company was not liable to pay the compensation.
4. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent/1st claimant was examined as PW.1 and an eye-witness was examined as PW.2. On behalf of the respondents 1 and 2/claimants, 10 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P10. On behalf of the appellant Insurance Company, one Geetharani was examined as RW.1 and Regional Legal Manager of Insurance Company was examined as RW.2 and 3 documents were marked as Exs.R1 to R3.
5. The Tribunal based on the evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that the accident had occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the mini lorry and held that the appellant-Insurer was liable to pay compensation as insurer of the mini lorry. The amount payable to the claimants was quantified at Rs.9,97,000/-. Aggrieved by the liability fixed on the Insurance Company, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the Appellant/Insurance Company would submit that the deceased and 25 persons had travelled in a goods vehicle and therefore, the deceased could only be treated as gratuitous passenger and accordingly, the Insurance Company is not liable to honour the award.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2/claimants would submit that as per the terms of Insurance Policy, employees of the insured other than the driver not exceeding the number of persons permitted in registration document will be covered by the policy and hence, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the appellant was liable.
8. It is the specific argument of the learned counsel appearing for the Appellant/Insurance Company that deceased travelled as a gratuitous passenger in a goods vehicle and hence, appellant was not liable. On the contrary, it was the specific case of the claimants that deceased travelled as a cleaner in the cabin of the goods vehicle and hence, as per the policy condition, the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation.
9. In order to prove that the deceased travelled as a cleaner, the 1st claimant father of the deceased was examined as PW.1. He in his proof affidavit clearly stated that the deceased had travelled in the cabin of the vehicle as cleaner. In the cross examination, he clearly deposed that the above said fact came to his knowledge through his younger son-M.C
