Back
2024 Supreme(MP) 44
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
Hirdesh, J.
Branch Manager National Insurance Co. Ltd.- Appellant
Versus
Aghan Singh Meravi S/O Late Shri Paklu Meravi And Ors. – Respondents
Misc. Appeal No. 2347, 2357 of 2022
Decided On : 18-01-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Smt. Amrit Kaur Ruprah, Advocate
For the Respondent:Shri Santosh Kumar Meshram, Advocate, Shri D.K. Tiwari – Advocate
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the insurance policy provisions and the purpose of the insured vehicle in determining the liability of the insurance company in a motor accident case.
Headnote:
Insurance - Motor Vehicles Act - Section 173(1) - Summary of Acts and Sections: Motor Vehicles Act, Section 173(1) - The court discussed the liability of the insurance company in a motor accident case where the deceased were traveling as passengers in a vehicle insured as a goods carrying vehicle. The court interpreted the capacity and purpose of the vehicle, and the insurance policy provisions related to carrying passengers. The interpretation of the evidence led to the finding that the insurance company was not liable for compensation.
Fact of the Case:
The appeals were filed by the insurance company against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, where the claimants were awarded compensation for the death of individuals in a motor accident. The insurance company argued that the deceased were traveling as passengers in a vehicle insured as a goods carrying vehicle, and therefore, the insurance company was not liable for compensation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the deceased were traveling as gratuitous passengers in the offending vehicle, and the insurance company was not liable to pay compensation. The owner and driver of the offending vehicle were held jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimants.
Issues: The main issue was whether the insurance company was liable to pay compensation for the death of the individuals who were traveling as passengers in a vehicle insured as a goods carrying vehicle.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the evidence, including witness testimonies and the capacity and purpose of the offending vehicle. The court concluded that the deceased were traveling as gratuitous passengers, and therefore, the insurance company was not liable for compensation.
Final Decision: The appeal was disposed of, and the court held that the insurance company was not liable to pay compensation to the claimants. The owner and driver of the offending vehicle were directed to pay the awarded compensation to the claimants.
ORDER :
1. These appeals have been filed by the appellant/insurance company under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act being aggrieved with the common award dated 26.02.2022 passed by Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Baihar, Distt. Balaghat in MACC No.07/2019 and MACC No.08/2019, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.10,94,464/- in MACC No.07/2019 and Rs.14,33,152/- in MACC No.08/2019, with interest from the dated of filing of petition till realization to the claimants by way of compensation on account of death of Sarvan Markam and Chhari Bai in motor accident which allegedly took place on 04.11.2018.
2. In M.A. No. 2347/2022 it is alleged that deceased Sarwan Markam was travelling in pick up van CG-09-B-1547 which was being driven by respondent Praveen Ramtake negligently. It was owned by the respondent Namrata Agrawal and insured by the appellant/insurance company. Due to negligent driving, it overturned and consequently deceased sustained injuries and died.
3. In MA No. 2347/2022, claimant filed a claim petition that deceased Chhari Bai was walking on the road then the driver of that vehicle bearing registration No. CG-09-B-1547, namely, Praveen Ramteke was driving the vehicle at high speed and negligently and then the vehicle overturned then deceased Chhari Bai sustained injuries and died.
4. Claimants of both deceased Chhari Bai and Sarvan Markam filed claim petitions for seeking compensation against the owner, driver and insurance company.
5. Driver and owner of the offending vehicle denied and stated that no accident has been caused by them. They pleaded that offending vehicle was insured with the insurance company. So they are not liable for compensation.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for appellant (in both appeals) denied the allegation and taken defence that driver and owner, breaches the term and policy of the insurance company and deceased were travelling in pick up van as a gratuitous passengers. Offending vehicle was registered as a transport vehicle and it has capacity for travelling of only two persons driver and helper. It was not for carrying passengers, so it is a breach of insurance policy so insurance company is not liable.
7. Tribunal framed the issues and recorded the evidence and thereafter, claim petitions of the claimants were partially accepted and awarded the compensation.
8. Being aggrieved by the impugned award appellant/insurance company filed these appeals on ground that offending vehicle was insured as a transport vehicle and not for carrying passengers. Both the deceased were travelling in the vehicle as passengers in offending vehicle. It had a capacity of carrying only two persons, driver and helper and deceased was not a helper, so insurance company prays for exoneration from their liability.
9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents/claimants in both the appeals submitted that Tribunal passed impugned award after due appreciation of evidence that came on record which requires no interference and pray for rejection of this appeal.
10. Considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the Tribunal.
11. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that deceased were travelling as passengers in the offending vehicle. In MACC No. 07/2019, P.W. 1 Pandu Markam stated in evidence in Para No. 1 by way of affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 that his son Sarvan Markam was returning from Damoh market to his village Kudekasa in the said pick van which was being driven by the driver of the offending vehicle who was driving it rashly and negligently and overturned the vehicle, due to that his son Sarvan Markam received injuries and thereafter, he died. P.W. 1 Pandu Markam in his cross-examination in
Para 7 stated which is as under :-
^^;g dguk lgh gS fd nq?kZVukxzLr okgu fidvi Øekad lh-th- 09 ch 1547 esa xkao ds vU; yksx Hkh cSBs FksA ;g dguk Hkh lgh gS fd nq?kZVukxzLr okgu esa esjs iq= ds vfrfjDr 15 ls 20 yks
