Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 39460
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Shoba Annamma Eapen, J
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. – Appellant
Versus
SUDEV (MINOR) – Respondent
MACA 883/2013
SMT.DEEPA GEORGE, SRI. P.SAMSUDIN, SMT. NIMA JACOB
Insurance liability is limited to the actual seating capacity of the vehicle, and the insurer is not liable for claims exceeding that capacity.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 147 and 149 - Appeal by insurer against liability for compensation awarded to pillion rider - Claimant sustained injuries due to accident involving overloaded motorcycle - Tribunal found contributory negligence - Award of ₹26,560/- made with interest @8% p.a. - Insurer disputes liability based on policy conditions regarding seating capacity. (Paras 2, 3, 4, 8, 9)
(B) Insurance Liability - The liability of the insurance company is limited to the actual seating capacity of the vehicle, and it is not liable for claims exceeding that capacity. (Paras 6, 8)
(C) Contributory Negligence - The tribunal allocated 80% negligence to the rider and 20% to the claimant, influencing the compensation awarded. (Para 3)
Facts of the case:
The claimant was injured as a pillion rider on an overloaded motorcycle that collided with an electric post. The insurer admitted the policy but contested liability due to the overload and lack of valid license for the rider.
Findings of Court:
The tribunal's award was based on contributory negligence, leading to a reduced compensation amount.
Issues: The main issues were the liability of the insurer regarding the overloaded motorcycle and the impact of contributory negligence on compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the insurer is not liable for compensation exceeding the motorcycle's seating capacity, aligning with the precedent set in National insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Anjana Shyam & Ors.
Result: Appeal allowed; the tribunal's award set aside concerning the insurer's liability.
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been filed by the 4th respondent, insurer in O.P (MV) No.2592 of 2006 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur. The respondents herein were the petitioner and respondents 1 to 3 before the tribunal.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- On 25.05.2006 at about 2.30 PM, while the claimant was traveling as a pillion rider along with two other pillion riders on the motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-8/V-4602, ridden by the 3rd respondent in a rash and negligent manner through Karyavattom – Shanmugham public road, the rider lost his control over the motorcycle and hit on an electric post and thereby the claimant sustained serious injuries. The 1st respondent was the owner, the 2nd respondent was the policy holder and the 4th respondent was the insurer of the offending vehicle. The claimant approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹1,00,000/-.
3. The respondents 1 to 3 remained ex-parte before the tribunal. The 4th respondent insurer admitted the policy, but according to insurer, the motorcycle was overloaded with four persons and the overload resulted in the accident. Therefore, they disputed the liability and quantum of compensation claimed. Further, it was contended that the owner knowingly let the third respondent ride without a valid licence and badge, violating the policy conditions. There was no oral evidence adduced on the part of the claimant before the tribunal. Exts.A11 to A13 were marked on the side of the claimant and Ext.B1 was marked on the side of the respondents. No oral evidence was adduced on the part of the respondents. The Tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, found that the deceased was a pillion rider along with two other pillion riders and the vehicle was ridden in an overloaded manner. The tribunal also found contributory negligence of 80% on the side of the 3rd respondent, rider and 20% on the claimant. Therefore, the tribunal found that the insurance company is liable to pay only 80% in respect of only one pillion rider who is claiming the highest compensation among the petitioners. The compensation in respect of other two pillion riders though can be realized from the insurance company, they are entitled to recover it from the owner- 1st respondent. Hence, after deducting 20% contributory negligence, the tribunal has awarded a sum of ₹26,560/- as compensation under different heads with interest @8% per annum from the date of petition till realization, against 4th respondent, insurer.
4. Challenging the liability to pay the compensation awarded by the tribunal, the insurer has come up with the appeal.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/4th respondent insurer as well as the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent/2nd respondent in the appeal.
6. The learned Standing Counsel for the insurance company submitted that the liability of the insurance company was limited to a rider and for one pillion rider, the seating capacity only for two persons. Here, the vehicle was overloaded with three pillion riders. The rider of the motorcycle lost his control over the vehicle, it hit on an electric post and sustained injuries to the pillion riders and also death of one pillion rider. The learned standing counsel appearing for the insurance company relied on the judgment inNational insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Anjana Shyam & Ors. [2007 (7) SCC 445] , wherein it was held that cases where the ''maximum compensation'' payable have to be identified, based on the actual seating capacity and the said extent only need to be satisfied by the Insurance Company.
7. One among the pillion riders who succumbed to the injuries filed OP (MV) No.2590 of 2006 and compensation was awarded by the tribunal. In that case the insurance company admitted the liability to pay the compensation. The tribunal awarded the highest compensation for the death of the pillion rider and the insurance company paid the compensation.
8. Therefore, following the
