Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 93253
MADRAS HIGH COURT
Honourable Ms.Justice V.M.VELUMANI
M/S. UNITED INDIA INSURNCE CO – Appellant
Versus
MR. P. JAGADEESAN – Respondent
CMA/2655/2014
An insurance company is not liable to pay compensation to a pillion rider under an Act Policy, and the extra premium collected as loading TP premium under Clause (B) of the India Motor Tariff is not intended to cover the risk of pillion riders.
Headnote:
MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT - INSURANCE - LIABILITY - ACT POLICY - LOADING TP PREMIUM - COVERAGE OF PILLION RIDER - INTERPRETATION OF INDIA MOTOR TARIFF - CLAUSE (B) - RATIO DECIDENDI - APPELLANT-INSURANCE COMPANY NOT LIABLE TO PAY COMPENSATION TO PILLION RIDER - 2ND RESPONDENT-OWNER OF MOTORCYCLE LIABLE TO PAY COMPENSATION.
Fact of the Case:
1. The 1st respondent filed a claim petition claiming compensation for injuries sustained in an accident while travelling as a pillion rider on a motorcycle insured with the appellant.2. The appellant denied liability, claiming the policy was an Act Policy that did not cover pillion riders and that the extra premium collected was for 'loading' due to a break in policy and perception of risk.3. The Tribunal held that the accident was caused by the rider's negligence and directed the appellant to pay compensation to the 1st respondent and recover it from the 2nd respondent, the motorcycle's owner.
Finding of the Court:
1. The Tribunal erred in holding that the appellant collected additional premium to cover the risk of pillion riders and that pillion riders are third parties.2. Clause (B) of the India Motor Tariff allows insurance companies to collect additional premium as loading TP premium for adverse claims experience, individual risk perception, and other factors.3. The premium collected for loading is not intended to cover the risk of passengers travelling in the vehicle.4. The appellant is not liable to pay compensation to the 1st respondent, and the 2nd respondent, the motorcycle's owner, is solely responsible for paying the compensation awarded.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellant-insurance company is liable to pay compensation to the 1st respondent, a pillion rider, under an Act Policy.2. Whether the extra premium collected by the appellant was intended to cover the risk of pillion riders.3. Whether the Tribunal erred in holding that pillion riders are third parties under an Act Policy.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. An Act Policy only covers third-party liability for bodily injury or death and property damage, and does not cover pillion riders.2. The extra premium collected as loading TP premium under Clause (B) of the India Motor Tariff is not intended to cover the risk of pillion riders.3. Pillion riders are not third parties under an Act Policy and are not entitled to compensation from the insurance company.
Final Decision: The appeal is allowed. The award of the Tribunal holding the appellant liable to pay compensation to the 1st respondent is set aside. The 2nd respondent, the motorcycle's owner, is directed to deposit the award amount within eight weeks. The appellant is permitted to withdraw the award amount deposited by them, if any, and recover the same from the 2nd respondent.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 10.01.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI
C.M.A.No.2655 of 2014
and
M.P.No.1 of 2014
M/s. United India Insurance Company Limited,
Plot No.112, Thiruvalluvar Salai,
Thiruvanmiyur,
Chennai – 600 041.
.. Appellant/2nd Respondent
Vs.
1.P.Jagadeesan
2.V.Mahalingam
.. Respondents/Petitioner/1st Respondent
(R2 remained exparte in Lower Court)
Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section
173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and
Decree dated 23.01.2013 made in M.C.O.P.No.2407 of 2007 on the
file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, III Judge, Small
Causes Court, Chennai.
For Appellant : Mr.M.B.Gopalan
For R1
: Mr.P.D.Selvaraj
For R2
: No appearance
J U D G M E N T
(The matter is heard through “Video Conferencing”)
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against
the award dated 23.01.2013 made in M.C.O.P.No.2407 of 2007 on the
file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, III Small Causes
Court, Chennai.
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
2.The appellant is the 2nd respondent in M.C.O.P.No.2407
of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, III
Small Causes Court, Chennai. The 1st respondent filed the said
claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- as compensation
for the injuries sustained by him in the accident that took place
on 19.12.2003.
3.According to the 1st respondent, on 19.12.2003 at about
20.30 hours, while he was travelling as pillion rider in the
motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN 04 E 2079 belonging to 2nd
respondent and insured with appellant from Perungalathur to Porur
on the 200 feet Bye-Pass Road, Pulikoradu, West Tambaram,
Chennai, the rider of the motorcycle drove the same in a rash and
negligent manner endangering public safety and dashed on the
pedestrian who was coming from Perungalathur and caused the
accident. In the accident, the 1st respondent sustained multiple
grievous injuries all over his body. After the accident, the 1st
respondent was taken to Government General Hospital, Chennai,
where he has taken inpatient treatment from 19.12.2003 to
21.12.2003. Thereafter, he was shifted to The Best Hospital
Private Limited, Kodambakkam, Chennai – 600 024, where he has
taken inpatient treatment from 22.12.2003 to 29.12.2003. Further,
he has taken treatment at K.V.T.Health Centre, Moolakadai,
Chennai – 600 060 as inpatient from 29.12.2003 to 08.01.2004,
03.03.2004 to 10.03.2004 and again from 01.09.2006 to 16.10.2006.
Therefore, 1st respondent filed the above said claim petition
claiming a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries
sustained by him against the 2nd respondent and appellant, being
the owner and insurer of the motorcycle respectively.
4.The 2nd respondent - owner of the motorcycle remained
exparte before the Tribunal.
5.The appellant-Insurance Company, filed counter
statement and additional counter statement denying all the
averments made by the 1st respondent. According to appellant, at
the time of accident, the 2nd respondent's motorcycle was not
insured with them and the rider of the motorcycle was not
possessing valid and effective driving license. The motorcycle
belonging to 2nd respondent was insured with the appellant under
Act Policy No.010907/31/02/06685 on the date of accident and the
said policy does not cover pillion rider. No additional premium
was paid to cover the risk of pillion rider. The 1st respondent
was travelling as pillion rider in the motorcycle and hence, the
appellant is not liable to pay any compensation to the 1st
respondent. The appellant denied the age, avocation, income,
injuries, disability, period of treatment taken and medical
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
expenses incurred by the 1st respondent. In any event, the quantu
