Dismissed

The United Iindia Insurance Co. v. Vanitha

Madras HC12 Nov 2024CMA/2708/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge of the Madras High Court dismissed Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed by an insurance company against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award. The court upheld the Tribunal's finding that the insurer must pay compensation for all claimants, including unauthorized passengers, as the vehicle was a public carrier and the insurer could not prove an exception.

What did the court decide?

Insurance company directed to pay compensation as per Tribunal award within two months.

The United Iindia Insurance Co. Vs Vanitha — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

C.M.A.No.2708 of 2010 & Batch of Cases

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 12.11.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

C.M.A.Nos.2708, 2709, 2710, 2711, 2712 of 2010 & 2355, 2356, 2357, 2358, 2359, 2360, 2361 of 2012 & 505 of 2013 and M.P.Nos. 1 of 2010, 1 of 2010, 1 of 2010, 1 of 2010 & 1 of 2010, 1 of 2012, 1 of 2012, 1 of 2012, 1 of 2012, 1 of 2012, 1 of 2012 & 1 of 2012 and 1 of 2013

¶7

CMA.No.2708 of 2010

¶8

The United India Insurance Company Ltd., Katpadi Raod, 74-A, Salaai Road, Vellore District. .. Appellant Vs. 1.Vanitha 2.Minor Ranjit 3.Minor Vidhya 4.Mottiammal 5.Senrayan (Minors 2 & 3 are rep. by their mother & next friend guardian 1st respondent Vanitha)

¶9

6.D.Kumar 7.J.Thangavel Achari

¶10

(Respondents 6 & 7 set exparte in the Lower Court)

¶11

.. Respondents

¶12

Page No:1/9

¶13

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

¶14

C.M.A.No.2708 of 2010 & Batch of Cases

¶15

Prayer

¶16

Prayer : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the decree and judgment, dated 12.01.2007 made in MACTOP.Nos.569, 573, 667, 669, 874, 550,549, 553, 555, 556, 565, 566 & 551 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge) (Fast Track Court), Thirupattur at Vellore District.

¶17

For Appellant : Mr.S.Arun Kumar For Respondents 1 to 5 : Mr.Harishankar Amicus Curie For Respondent 6 : Exparte vide order dated 24.03.2023 For Respondent 7 : Exparte vide order dated 24.03.2023

¶18

COMMON JUDGMENT

¶19

These appeals arising out of a common award passed in MACTOP.Nos.569, 573, 667, 669, 874, 550,549, 553, 555, 556, 565, 566 &

¶20

551 of 2002 dated 12.01.2007 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge) (Fast Track Court), Thirupattur at Vellore District.

¶21

Page No:2/9

¶22

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

¶23

C.M.A.No.2708 of 2010 & Batch of Cases

¶24

Since all the appeals arising out of the Common Award, they were

¶25

taken up together and disposed of by this Common Judgment. For the sake of convenience, CMA.No.2708 of 2010 is taken up as lead case in this batch of appeals.

¶26

The respective claimants filed claim petitions before the Claims Tribunal alleging that on 24.03.1996, the injured and the deceased persons were traveled as a coolie in a mini lorry bearing Reg.No. TN 45 Y 1626, owned by the seventh respondent/Thangavel Achari in CMA.No.2708 of 2002 insured with the appellant/Insurance Company which was owned by one Kumar who is the sixth respondent in CMA.No.2708 of 2002 and dashed against the bridge wall, thereby, the vehicle was capsized. Due to the impact, some of the persons travelled in the mini lorry died and some were injured. Therefore, the injured as well as the legal heirs of the deceased have filed claim petitions alleging that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the mini lorry bearing Reg.No.TN45-Y-1626, owned by the 7^th respondent and insured with the appellant/insurance company.

¶27

Page No:3/9

¶28

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

¶29

C.M.A.No.2708 of 2010 & Batch of Cases

¶30

The Tribunal, upon considering the oral and documentary evidence

¶31

held that though the lorry in question was insured with the appellant/insurance company at the time of accident, some of the persons were travelled as unauthorised passengers and few were covered under the policy. Therefore, being insurer of the lorry, the appellant is liable to pay the compensation to all the claimants and then to recover the same from the owner of the lorry i.e., 7^th respondent herein. Questioning the liability, the appellant/insurance company filed these appeals.

¶32

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the case of the appellant is based on Ex.P4/RC Book and Ex.P5/Insurance Policy marked before the Claims Tribunal. On perusal of the same, it reveals that the vehicle in question is a goods carrier and no person is entitled to travel, except the persons allowed to travel as per the terms of the Insurance Policy. In Ex.P5 it has been stated that the vehicle is a public carrier. However, it means that no unauthorised persons were allowed to travel in the goods vehicle and hence, the appellant is not entitled to pay the compensation, since no amount was paid under the policy for unauthorised passengers. However, without considering the same, the Trial Court mechanically fixed

¶33

Page No:4/9

¶34

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

¶35

C.M.A.No.2708 of 2010 & Batch of Cases

¶36

the negligence as against the driver of the vehicle and fastened the liability

¶37

upon the appellant/Insurance Company. Accordingly, he prayed for allowing the appeals.

¶38

Despite notice through paper publication, the names of the claimants were printed in the cause list, none appears on behalf of the claimants/respondents 1 to 5. Since there was no representation for the claimants/respondents 1 to 5, this Court appoints Mr.Hari Shankar, learned counsel as Amicus Curie to assist this Court.

¶39

Learned Amicus Curie would submit that upon perusal of Ex.P5

¶40

policy, there is a specific contract between the appellant/Insurance Company and the seventh respondent/Thangavel Achari, the same makes it clear that the vehicle is a public carrier vehicle and there is no prohibition for coolie as unauthorized passenger and no detailed policy was also marked by the appellant/Insurance company and the policy was marked only by the claimants.

¶41

Page No:5/9

¶42

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

¶43

C.M.A.No.2708 of 2010 & Batch of Cases

¶44

Learned Amicus Curie further submitted that RW1 was examined

¶45

by the appellant/Insurance Company through whom IMT policy was marked and no Insurance Policy was marked. RW1 deposed before the claims Tribunal, that after 5 years, the policy will be dispatched and he also admitted that no policy was marked before the Trial Court. Thereby, the Tribunal on perusal of Ex.P5, passed award in favour of the respective claimants, which does not warrant any interference by this Court and prayed for dismissal of the appeals.

¶46

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Amicus

¶47

Curie for the claimants/respondents 1 to 5 and this Court has also perused the materials available on record.

¶48

On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties and as rightly held by the Tribunal, the mini lorry in question owned by the 7^th respondent and driven by the 6^th respondent was insured with the appellant/insurance company, at the time of accident, the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the 6^th respondent. Moreover, some of the occupants were entitled to be covered under the

¶49

Page No:6/9

¶50

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

¶51

C.M.A.No.2708 of 2010 & Batch of Cases

¶52

policy and some were travelled as unauthorized passenger. It also appears that the vehicle in question is a public carrier and there was an agreement/contract between the appellant/insurance company and the owner of the vehicle. That apart, the appellant has failed to prove that the vehicle was hired to transport passengers for attending a political rally. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal has rightly ordered for pay and recovery. This Court finds that there is no infirmity or perversity in the findings recorded by the Tribunal.

¶53

With regard to the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, this Court finds that the appellant/insurance company has not challenged the quantum. Therefore, there is no elaborate discussion required in respect of the quantum of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Further, on a reading of the Award, particularly discussion of the Tribunal point No.3, it is seen that the Tribunal after analysing and discussing the each and every case, awarded just and reasonable compensation. This Court finds, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not on higher side.

¶54

Page No:7/9

¶55

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

¶56

C.M.A.No.2708 of 2010 & Batch of Cases

¶57

For all the reasons stated above, the Award of the Tribunal in MACTOP.Nos.569, 573, 667, 669, 874, 550,549, 553, 555, 556, 565, 566 & 551 of 2002 is perfectly right and no valid reasons are made out by the appellant/insurance company to interfere with the same.

¶58

In the result, the appeals are dismissed. The appellant/insurance company is directed to pay the compensation as directed by the Tribunal, if not already deposited, the same shall be deposited within a period of two(2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶59

12.11.2024

¶60

msv Index : Yes Speaking Order : Yes

¶61

To Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge) (Fast Track Court), Thirupattur,Vellore District. Page No:8/9

¶62

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

¶63

C.M.A.No.2708 of 2010 & Batch of Cases

¶64

M.DHANDAPANI,J.

¶65

msv

¶66

C.M.A.Nos.2708, 2709, 2710, 2711, 2712 of 2010 & 2355, 2356, 2357, 2358, 2359, 2360, 2361 of 2012 & 505 of 2013

¶67

12.11.2024

¶68

Page No:9/9

¶69

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

The United Iindia Insurance Co. v. Vanitha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The United Iindia Insurance Co. v. Vanitha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tata Aig General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs S.Dhanapal

Divisional Manager Vs K. Ramraj

The Divisional Manager Vs R.Kanaga

National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Williams,(Died)

C.Nallasivam Vs Karuappana Gounder(Died)

The Branch Manager Vs T. Krishnamoorthy