Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 60673
MADRAS HIGH COURT
V. M. Velumani, J.
Divisional Manager United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. T. Sangeetha and Others
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal | MCOP No. 663 of 2015
A deceased rider cannot claim compensation under S.163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act against the insurer when the rider is considered the tortfeasor.
Headnote:This appeal concerns the insurance liability in a motor accident case. The facts reveal a claim for compensation following the death of K. Thangaraj in an accident while riding a motorcycle. The accident's cause was disputed, with the Tribunal holding the insurance company vicariously liable. The main issue was whether the deceased, as the rider and tortfeasor, could claim under S.163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The court reiterated principles from prior judgments regarding liability when the rider borrows a vehicle. The appeal concluded with the setting aside of the Tribunal's award directing the insurance company to pay compensation.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction of appeal and case details. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. summary of accident and claims. (Para 3 , 4 , 6) |
| 3. tribunal's ruling on liability. (Para 8) |
| 4. arguments from both sides regarding compensation. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 5. critical analysis on tortfeasor's liability. (Para 15) |
| 6. conclusion of the appeal verdict. (Para 16 , 17) |
1. This civil miscellaneous appeal has been filed by the appellant insurance company against the judgment and decree dated 7.12.2018 made in MCOP No. 663 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, Fast Track Court, Kanchipuram.
2. By consent of both the learned counsel appearing for the appellant insurance company as well as the caveators / respondent Nos. 1 to 3, the appeal is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.
3. The appellant is the respondent No. 2 in MCOP No. 663 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, Fast Track Court, Kanchipuram. The respondent Nos. 1 to 3 filed the said claim petition claiming a sum of Rs. 15,00,000 as compensation for the death of one K. Thangaraj, who died in the accident that took place on 30.3.2015.
4. According to the respondent Nos. 1 to 3, on the date of accident, i.e., on 30.3.2015 at about 8.15 a.m., the deceased - Thangaraj was authorised by the respondent No. 4 to do carpentry in Kalavai village and after finishing the work, while the deceased was riding Hero Splendor PRO motor cycle from Kalavai towards Chennai on the extreme left side of the road, near Rajakulam village on Chennai - Bangalore Highways Road, in a rash and negligent manner, suddenly one dog crossed the road. On seeing this, the deceased tried to avoid hitting the dog, failed, hit the dog and capsized near a centre median of the road along with the motor cycle. In the said impact, the deceased was thrown away to some distance, sustained grievous injuries and died on 4.4.2015. Hence, the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 filed the above claim petition claiming compensation against respondent No. 4 as owner and appellant as insurer of the said vehicle.
5. The respondent No. 4, owner of the motor cycle, remained ex parte before the Tribunal.
6. The appellant insurance company being insurer of the motor cycle filed counter - statement and denied all the averments made by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in the claim petition. According to the appellant, as per F.I.R. and averments made in the claim petition, it is clear that the deceased alone rode the motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner and hit against the centre median of the highway road. The deceased himself was the tortfeasor. The said motor cycle was not insured with the appellant and the deceased did not possess a valid driving licence at the time of accident. Therefore, the appellant insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation to the respondent Nos. 1 to 3. In any event, the total compensation claimed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 is excessive and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
7. Before the Tribunal, the respondent No. 1, wife of the deceased, examined herself as PW 1 and seven documents were marked as Exhs. P1 to P7. Appellant insurance company examined one Saraswathi, Assistant Manager of the insurance company, as RW 1 and marked two documents as Exhs. R1 and R2.
8. The Tribunal, considering the pleadings and oral and documentary evidence, held that the deceased died in the accident that occurred while using the motor cycle belonging to the respondent No. 4, respondent No. 4 as owner is vicariously liable to pay compensation and directed the appellant as insurer of the said vehicle to pay a sum of Rs. 6,98,320 as compensation to the respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
9. Challenging the liability fastened on it and questioning the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal in the award dated 7.12.2018 made in MCOP No. 663 of 2015, the appellant insurance company has come up with the present appeal.
10. The learned coun
