Allowed

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. S.Ponnusamy

Madras HC1 Nov 2022CMA/3623/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an appeal by United India Insurance Company challenging an MACT award. The Court held that since the tractor was single-seater and permitted only the driver, the petitioner was an unauthorized passenger. The insurance policy did not cover such passengers. Consequently, the award against the insurer was set aside.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was allowed and the Award in M.C.O.P.No.760 of 2006 was set aside.

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs S.Ponnusamy — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

C.M.A.No.3623 of 2014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 01.11.2022

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA

¶6

C.M.A.No.3623 of 2014 and

¶7

M.P.No.1 of 2014

¶8

United India Insurance Company Limited, 13A, Nethaji Road, Manjakuppam, Cuddalore. ... Appellant/2^nd respondent Vs.

¶9

1.S.Ponnusamy ...Respondent/Petitioner 2.N.Murugan …Respondent/1^st Respondent

¶10

Prayer : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the Award and Decree dated 23.06.2014 in M.C.O.P.No.760 of 2006 on the file of the learned II Additional Subordinate Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Cuddalore.

¶11

1/7

¶12

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶13

C.M.A.No.3623 of 2014

¶14

For Appellant : Mr.S.Arun Kumar For Respondents : Ms.Ramya V. Rao for R1

¶15

R2 – served – No appearance

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

The Insurance Company has preferred the above appeal challenging the Award passed by the II Additional Subordinate Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Cuddalore, M.C.O.P.No.760 of 2006 on the ground that the Insurance Company is not liable to compensate the petitioner since the petitioner was an unauthorised passenger.

¶18

2.It is the case of the petitioner that on 05.02.2006, the

¶19

petitioner was travelling in the 1^st respondent's tractor, bearing Registration No.TN 46C 9921. The driver of the Tractor had driven the same in a rash and negligent manner without following the traffic

¶20

2/7

¶21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶22

C.M.A.No.3623 of 2014

¶23

rules as a result of which, the petitioner was thrown out of the vehicle

¶24

and run over by the Tractor. This resulted in him sustaining grievous injuries. The petitioner would contend that immediately, he had been admitted in the Government Hospital at Cuddalore and thereafter, he was taking treatment in a Private hospital.

¶25

3.The Insurance Company has filed a counter inter lia contending that they are not liable to compensate the petitioner since the petitioner is an unauthorised passenger. Despite the defence, the Tribunal had gone onto fasten the liability on the Insurance Company and passed an Award for a sum of Rs.1,67,480/- with interest @7.5% per annum. Challenging the same, the Insurance Company is before this Court.

¶26

4.Heard the learned counsels appearing on either side and

¶27

perused the papers.

¶28

3/7

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

C.M.A.No.3623 of 2014

¶31

5.Even as per the contention of the petitioner, he had been

¶32

travelling in the tractor in which only a driver is permitted to travel as the tractor is a single seater. Therefore, the petitioner who travelled along with the driver is an unauthorised passenger. The Tribunal has glossed over the counter filed by the Insurance Company and contended that the Insurance Company should pay the compensation and recover the same from the insurer and in this regard had relied upon the Judgment of this Court in Ravunammal and another v. Sambandham and others [2008 ACJ 974] .

¶33

6.The learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company has relied upon a Judgment of this Court in the case of ICICI Lombard

¶34

General Insurance Company Limited, Salem v. Velmurugan and others in C.M.A.No.653 of 2013 .

¶35

4/7

¶36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶37

C.M.A.No.3623 of 2014

¶38

7.Admittedly, the Tractor is a single seater in which only the driver could be seated. Therefore, the contention of the Insurance Company that the deceased was an unauthorised passenger stands proved. The insurance policy further makes it very clear that the liability is limited to IMT 30 and it is only the driver who is covered as per endorsement in IMT 28.

¶39

8.Therefore, the Award passed by the Tribunal fastening the liability on the Insurance Company is liable to be set aside. Consequently, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed and the Award passed in M.C.O.P.No.760 of 2006 on the file of the learned II Additional Subordinate Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Cuddalore, is set aside. In case the petitioner has already withdrawn the amount deposited then it is open to the appellant/Insurance

¶40

5/7

¶41

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶42

C.M.A.No.3623 of 2014

¶43

Company to recover the same from the 2^nd respondent Mr.N.Murugan without resorting to the separate proceedings by filing execution proceedings. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶44

01.11.2022

¶45

Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Speaking order / Non speaking order mps To

¶46

The II Additional Subordinate Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Cuddalore.

¶47

6/7

¶48

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶49

C.M.A.No.3623 of 2014