Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 58290
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. Srimathy: J
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited – Appellant
Versus
Kamala – Respondent
C.M.A(MD)No.847 of 2013
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.C. Jawahar Ravindran
For the Respondents: Mr.M. Karunanithi
Insurance liability is determined by the coverage status of insured vehicles at the time of the accident.
Headnote:This case addresses liability under the Motor Vehicles Act, particularly regarding the insurance of a tractor and trailer after a fatal accident. The court found that the tractor was uninsured at the time of the accident, ruling that the Insurance Company was not liable for compensation. Key issues included the definition of insurance coverage for vehicles and precedents which were deemed inapplicable. The court remitted the case to the lower tribunal for further proceedings after reversing the previous ruling.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. insurance liability hinges on the coverage status of the vehicles involved. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. inspection of the insurance policy revealed coverage mismatches. (Para 3) |
| 3. citations were discussed with varied applicability to the case. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. the court remitted the case back to the tribunal for further proceedings. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
JUDGMENT
The Insurance Company has preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
2. It is a case of fatal. The contention of the Insurance Company is that the Trailer alone was insured with the Insurance Company and the Tractor which caused the accident was insured. The Tractor had hit the deceased while the deceased was walking on the road and hence the Insurance Company are not liable to pay the compensation. It is seen that the Insurance Company has not produced the original copy of the insurance policy before the Trial Court, hence the Trial Court has come to the conclusion that the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation. Further the Trial Court has held that both the Tractor and Trailer belongs to the same person, since the owner is the same person for both the Tractor and Trailer, the same cannot be separated and held the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation.
3. It is seen that the insurance is available for the Tractor but period had expired on the date of accident. The insurance coverage for the Tractor was from 30.03.2005 to 29.03.2006 and the accident occurred on 20.04.2006. However, the Trailer was insured separately and it was valid at the time of accident. However, the accident occurred when the victim was walking on the road and the Tractor hit the victim. The tractor was not having a valid policy and the policy had expired on the date of accident. In such circumstances, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the same.
4. The learned Counsel appearing for the claimants submitted when the Trailer is insured, the same would cover Tractor also. He relied on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhondubai Vs. Hanmantappa Bandappa Gandigude since deceased through his LRs and others reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 725. However, it is seen that the above said judgment was passed under Article 142 of the Constitution of India by invoking the powers of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The said power is not available to the High Court hence, the said judgment cannot be followed.
5. The Learned Counsel appearing for the claimants also relied on another judgment rendered in the case of D.Lakshmana Murthy and another Vs. V.Rajesh (Minor) by Guardian. As far as this judgment is concerned, the said judgment was passed by the High Court of Karnataka and hence the same is not binding on the Court. Further, the learned Counsel appearing for the claimants relied on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Brij Mohan and others reported in 2007 (2) TN MAC 66 (SC) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that the tractor is defined under Section 2(30) and the trailer is defined under Section 2(32). When both the Tractor and Trailer are separate and separately insured, then the insurance policy is necessary for both. Moreover, in the present case additional premium was also not collected from the owner. Therefore, the Tribunal has erred in fixing the liability on the Insurance Company.
6. Since the Insurance Company has filed a separate petition producing the original policy before this Court, this Court deems it fit to remit the case back to the Tribunal.
7. The impugned order is set aside and the case is remitted back to the Tribunal. The Tribunal shall complete the case within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
8. With the above said directions, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. No costs. C.M.P.(MD)No.306 of 2024 is allowed and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2013 is closed.
