In three motor accident claims, the High Court held insurance company liable to pay deceased passengers who transported goods but exonerated itself for the injured gratuitous passenger.
Awards confirmed for deceased passengers; award set aside for injured gratuitous passenger; Insurance Company to recover amount from vehicle owner.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C.M.A.Nos.2324, 2325 of
2016
and 55 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21.09.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA
C.M.A.Nos.2324, 2325 of 2016 and 55 of 2017 and C.M.P.Nos.16325, 16326 of 2016, 538 and 18063 of 2017
C.M.A.No.2324 of 2016 :
National Insurance Company Ltd., 751, Anna Salai, Chennai – 2 ... Appellant Vs 1. Kaliammal 2. Ravi 3. Vijaya 4. Vasanthi 5. M.Ramesh Babu ...Respondents C.M.A.No.2325 of 2016 :
National Insurance Company Ltd., 751, Anna Salai, Chennai – 2 ... Appellant
1/10
2016
C.M.A.Nos.2324, 2325 of
and 55 of 2017
Vs 1. P. Maheswari 2. P.Sridhar (Minor rep by mother and next friend guardian P.Maheswari) 3. K.Subbiah Nadar 4. M. Ramesh Babu ...Respondents C.M.A.No.55 of 2017 National Insurance Company Ltd., 751, Anna Salai, Chennai – 2 ... Appellant -vs1. P.Ponraj 2. M.Ramesh Babu ...Respondents
Prayer in C.M.A.No.2324 of 2016 : : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Award and Decree dated 04.01.2014 made in O.P.No.1841 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (In the VI Court of Small Causes), Chennai.
Prayer in C.M.A.No.2325 of 2016 : : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Award and Decree dated 04.01.2014 made in O.P.No.1850 of 2006 on the file of the
2/10
C.M.A.Nos.2324, 2325 of
2016
and 55 of 2017
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (In the VI Court of Small Causes), Chennai.
Prayer in C.M.A.No.55 of 2017 : : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Award and Decree dated 19.02.2016 made in M.C.O.P.No.2433 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (In the VI Court of Small Causes), Chennai.
For Appellant : Mr.D.Bhaskaran (in all CMAs) For Respondents 1 to 4 (in CMA.No.2324/2016) For Respondents 1 to 3 (in CMA.No.2325/2016) For Respondent-1 (in CMA.No.55/2017) : Mr.J.Ramkumar For Respondent-5 (in C.M.A.No.2324 of 2016) : Served – No Appearance For Respondent-4 (in C.M.A.No.2325 of 2016) : Served – No Appearance For Respondent-2 (in C.M.A.No.55 of 2017) : Not ready in notice – Reg R2
3/10
2016
C.M.A.Nos.2324, 2325 of
and 55 of 2017
COMMON JUDGMENT
Since three claim petitions arise out of a single accident, a common
judgment is being pronounced. The parties are referred to in the same ranking as before the Tribunal.
(i) The petitioners in M.C.O.P.No.1841 of 2006 and
M.C.O.P.No.1850 of 2006 are the legal representatives of the deceased
passengers, who have travelled in the first respondent's TATA ACE. The claimant in M.C.O.P.No.2433 of 2005 is the injured, who was also travelling in the very same vehicle.
(ii) One T.Arumugam (whose legal heirs had filed
4/10
C.M.A.Nos.2324, 2325 of
2016
and 55 of 2017
M.C.O.P.No.1841 of 2006), Pandian @ Padmarajan (whose legal heirs had filed M.C.O.P.No.1850 of 2006), and P.Ponraj, the petitioner in M.C.O.P.No.2433 of 2006 and others were travelling in the TATA ACE belonging to the first respondent and insured with the second respondentInsurance Company on 19.08.2005. On the said date, all of them claimed to be carrying vegetables from the Koyambedu Market, at about 8.30 pm, when the vehicle was travelling on the Poonamallee High Road, since the driver of the vehicle was driving it in a rash and negligent manner had dashed against the median, as a result of which, the van has capsized and caused injuries to the persons travelling in the said vehicle and also caused the death of the said Arumugam and Pandian @ Padmarajan. The petitioners in M.C.O.P.No.1841 of 2006 had claimed a sum of Rs.8,00,000/as compensation. The claimants in M.C.O.P.No.1850 of 2006 had claimed a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- and the claimant in M.C.O.P.No.2433 of 2006 had claimant a compensation of a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-.
5/10
2016
C.M.A.Nos.2324, 2325 of
and 55 of 2017
(iii) The contention of the petitioners was that the accident had
occurred only on account of the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the first respondent's vehicle.
6/10
C.M.A.Nos.2324, 2325 of
2016
and 55 of 2017
annum. The claimant in M.C.O.P.No.2433 of 2000 was awarded a sum of Rs.60,000/-. All these Awards were challenged by the Insurance Company on the ground that the persons travelled in the TATA ACE were gratuitous passengers in a goods vehicle is violative not only on the terms of the policy but also the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act.
materials available on record.
7/10
2016
C.M.A.Nos.2324, 2325 of
and 55 of 2017
which have been carried in the vehicle. Therefore, the contention of the Insurance Company that the deceased Arumugam and Pandian @ Padmarajan. were gratuitous passengers may not be correct, in the light of the evidence of P.W3 and also taking into account the fact that the vehicle has a seating capacity of 1 + 2. However, with reference to the claimant in M.CO.P.No.2433 of 2005, an inference has to necessarily be drawn that he was travelling as a gratuitous passenger. In the light of the above, the challenge to the Awards in M.C.O.P.No.1841 of 2006 and M.C.O.P.No.1850 of 2006 has to necessarily be rejected. Consequently, C.M.A.Nos.2324 and 2325 of 2016 stand dismissed. The Insurance Company in both the cases shall deposit the Award amount and recover the same from the first respondent being the owner of the vehicle, since there is a violation of the policy conditions. In other respects, the Award of the Tribunal is hereby confirmed.
8/10
C.M.A.Nos.2324, 2325 of
2016
and 55 of 2017
allowed, since the petitioner is a gratuitous passenger, the Insurance Company is exonerated from its liability. The first respondent-owner of the vehicle is made liable to compensate the petitioners. To that extent, the Award passed by the Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.2433 of 2006 is set aside.
No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
21.09.2022
Index : Yes / No Speaking order / Non-speaking order
srn
To:
9/10
C.M.A.Nos.2324, 2325 of
2016 and 55 of 2017
P.T.ASHA, J.,
srn
C.M.A.Nos.2324, 2325 of 2016 and 55 of 2017 and C.M.P.Nos.16325 of 2016 and 18063 of 2017
21.09.2022
10/10
3 issues framed by the court
Whether insurance company is liable when deceased persons were owners of goods transported in the vehicle.
Whether claim of injured person is payable when they were a gratuitous passenger in the vehicle.
Whether Tribunal awards against insurance company should be confirmed or set aside.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
National Insurance Company Ltd.
Kaliammal
Ravi
Vijaya
Vasanthi
M.Ramesh Babu
P.T. ASHA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
