Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 57129
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MARY JOSEPH, J
THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. – Appellant
Versus
MOLY W/O.APPACHAN,AMAL GARDENS, THIRUNELLOOR.P.O,CHERTHALA,PIN-688 524. – Respondent
M.A.C.A. No. 2464 of 2012 | O.P(M.V) No. 104/2007
For the Appellants/Petitioners: K.S.SANTHI GEORGE CHERIAN (SR.), GEORGE A.CHERIAN
For the Respondents: SRI.J.OM PRAKASH
Liability for compensation under Motor Vehicles Act necessitates proof of a vehicle-related accident; incidents not meeting this definition cannot be adjudged by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 166 - Compensation claim for losses due to damage by fire - Appellant challenged Tribunal's award contending negligence lay elsewhere, and Original Petition not maintainable - Liability upon insurer set aside as damages arose from non-traffic incident which requires Marine Insurance coverage. (Paras 6, 20, 28)
(B) Original Petition - Jurisdiction of Tribunal - Must establish incidents fell within definition of motor accidents under relevant acts; appraisal of negligence is crucial. (Paras 20, 28)
Facts of the case:
Petitioner sought compensation for coir fibers lost due to fire caused by negligence of driver, countered by appellant asserting no road traffic accident occurred as per legal definitions. Appellants contended lack of responsibility, so Original Petition deemed non-maintainable.
Findings of Court:
Tribunal erred in fixing liability on the insurer; Original Petition inappropriate for adjudication under Motor Vehicles Act.
Issues: Whether damages arose from a road accident under Motor Vehicles Act’s provisions and if claims are maintainable in this context.
Ratio Decidendi: Court ruled incidents leading to claims must qualify as motor accidents under MV Act for liability; thus, insurance coverage specifics critically influence adjudication.
Result: Appeal allowed and Tribunal's award set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court's interpretation of jurisdiction and findings. (Para 1 , 8 , 11) |
| 2. overview of the incident and legal standing. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. arguments regarding the nature of negligence and liability. (Para 6 , 12) |
| 4. legal principles concerning claims under motor vehicles act. (Para 20) |
| 5. final ruling on appeal and implications for liability. (Para 28) |
JUDGMENT
The appeal on hand is filed by the 3rd respondent in O.P(M.V) No.104/2007 pending on the files of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) challenging the award passed on 18/05/2012.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties to this appeal will hereinafter be referred to as the petitioner and respondents 1 to 4 in accordance with their status in the Original Petition.
3. The 3rd respondent was the insurer of the offending vehicle involved in the incident occurred on 09/02/2006. On that day, a Lorry bearing Registration No. TN.27/H-1117, wherein coir fibers were loaded and proceeding to a factory, caught fire in the factory premises on touching with an electric line due to the rash and negligent act of the driver of the Lorry. In the fire, the entire 159 bundles of coir fibers loaded in the Lorry and 1300 bundles of coir fibers belonging to the petitioner, lying in the factory premises and 600 bundles of coir fibers of various other persons brought there for processing were completely destroyed. Due to the catching of fire of the coir fibers belonging to the petitioner, she sustained a loss of Rs.5,00,000/-. Alleging that the damages were resulted from the negligence of the Lorry driver who failed to take proper care and attention, the Original Petition was filed. The Factory Godown was insured with the 4th respondent with a Fire Policy. A surveyor deputed by the Company assessed damages caused to the coir fibers. Rs.1,92,364/- was assessed as the damages caused to the fiber, which was kept in the Godown. The damages assessed being meagre, the petitioner arranged another Surveyor for assessing the damages other than the fiber and other articles which is lost in fire and thereby obtained a Report, wherein Rs.2,70,636/- was certified as the damages. Thus claiming for a sum of Rs.2,70,636/- as compensation for the damages caused to the coir fibers belonging to the petitioner, the Original Petition was moved before the Tribunal as O.P(M.V) No.104/2007.
4. The Driver, and the Registered Owner of the Lorry bearing Registration No. TN.27/H-1117 were arrayed as respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and the insurers were arrayed as respondents 3 and 4 in the Original Petition.
5. Though summons was served on respondents 1, 2 and 4, they did not turn up to contest the Original Petition and accordingly declared ex-parte.
6. Written Statement was filed by the 3rd respondent admitting Insurance Policy for the Lorry bearing Registration No. TN.27/H-1117 but denying negligence of the 1st respondent. It was contended that the incident in question was occurred due to the negligence of the petitioner as well as the KSEB, since the electric line was drawn through the factory premises precariously and against the rules and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to get any compensation from them for the damages sustained to her properties.
7. It was further contended that since the policy issued was a Fire Policy, the Original Petition seeking compensation is not maintainable before the Tribunal. An Original Petition seeking compensation is maintainable before the Tribunal only when damages were sustained in a road traffic accident. The 1st respondent was not chargesheeted for rash and negligent driving by the Cherthala Police on the basis of FIR No.62/2006, registered with reference to the fire occurred in the premises of the factory on 09.02.2006. The 3rd respondent also obtained permission from the Tribunal for contesting the Original Petition seeking compensation by availing all statutory defences.
8. The Tribunal raised two issues based on the pleadings of the
