Kerala High Court
Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd vs Usha on 7 October, 2025
2025:KER:73314
MACA No.670/2019
..1..
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
TUESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 15TH ASWINA, 1947
MACA NO. 670 OF 2019
OPMV NO.366 OF 2016 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THODUPUZHA
APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT:
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD
1ST AND 2ND FLOOR, VISHNU BUILDINGS, K.P.VALLONE ROAD,
KADAVANTHRA, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, REGIONAL
OFFICE, ERNAKULAM.
BY ADVS.
SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (SR.)
SMT.K.S.SANTHI
SMT.LATHA SUSAN CHERIAN
RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANTS 1-3 AND RESPONDENTS 4 & 5:
1 USHA
W/O.SAHADEVAN, THAMARAKATTE HOUSE, MANIYARANKUDY KARA,
MANIYARANKUDY.P.O., IDUKKI VILLAGE.
2 VISHNU.T.S.
S/O.SAHADEVAN, THAMARAKATTE HOUSE, MANIYARANKUDY.P.O.,
IDUKKI VILLAGE.
3 GRESHMA.T.S.(MINOR)
AGED 14 D/O.SAHADEVAN, DATE OF BIRTH 01/06/2004,
THAMARAKATTE HOUSE, MANIYARANKUDY KARA,
MANIYARANKUDY.P.O., IKDUKKI VILLAGE, REPRESENTED BY
HER MOHTER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN USHA W/O.SAHADEVAN)
2025:KER:73314
MACA No.670/2019
..2..
4 SONY
S/O.MATHEW, MANAPPURATHU HOUSE, PALLITHAZHAM BHAGAM,
VAZHATHOPPU, IDUKKI VILLAGE, IDUKKI KSEB COLONY.P.O.
5 SIBY JOSEPH
KUZHIKANDATHIL HOUSE, PANNIMATTAM.P.O., PANNIMATTAM,
THODUPUZHA-685588.
BY ADVS.
SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K)
SRI.BINU PAUL
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING
ON 23.09.2025, THE COURT ON 07.10.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:73314
MACA No.670/2019
..3..
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been filed by the third respondent insurer in
OP(MV) No. 366 of 2016 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, Thodupuzha, challenging the liability and quantum of
compensation awarded to the claimants. Respondents 1 to 3 herein
were the claimants and respondents 4 & 5 herein were respondents 1
& 2 before the tribunal.
2. The case of the claimants was that on 23.10.2015, the
deceased, who was a timber loading worker, while accompanying
goods in a jeep bearing Reg.No.KL-5G/5888 driven by the first
respondent in a rash and negligent manner, the front tyres of the jeep
lost contact with the road when climbing upwards and the jeep was
lifted upwards and then, the deceased jumped out of the jeep. When
the jeep moved forward, the deceased happened to be jammed
between the jeep and a retaining wall, whereby he sustained fatal
injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the way to hospital. The
claimants, being the legal heirs of the deceased, approached the
tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹25,00,000/-.
2025:KER:73314
..4..
3. The first respondent/driver of the offending vehicle
filed a written statement, denying negligence. The second
respondent/owner of the offending vehicle remained ex parte before
the tribunal. The third respondent insurer filed a written statement,
admitting the policy coverage for the offending vehicle, but disputing
the liability and quantum of compensation claimed. Before the
tribunal, Exts.A1 to A9 and B1 were marked. The tribunal, after
analysing the pleadings and materials on record, held that the
accident took place on account of the negligence of the driver of the
offending vehicle and awarded a sum of ₹12,96,000/- as compensation
under different heads with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of
petition till realization against the third respondent being the insurer.
The third respondent insurer has come up in appeal, challenging the
liability and the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal.
4. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the
appellant/respondent insurer and the learned counsel for respondents
1 to 3/claimants.
5. The learned Standing Counsel for the insurer
submitted that the deceased was an unauthorised passenger in a
goods vehicle and hence, was not covered by a policy of insurance,
2025:KER:73314
..5..
however, though the said contention was raised before the tribunal,
the tribunal fastened the liability on the insurer finding that the
deceased was a third party at the time of the accident, which is per se
illegal. According to the learned Standing Counsel, the allegation that
he was accompanying the goods is not correct and he was neither an
owner nor a representative of the owner of the goods, whereas, he was
travelling by sitting on the bumper of the jeep by violating traffic rules.
It is further submitted that the contention that the deceased was a
loading worker and was travelling in the vehicle in connection with the
work is not proved and he cannot be treated as a third party and the
insurer cannot be held liable to pay the compensation awarded by the
tribunal. To buttress the arguments, the learned Standing Counsel
relied on the judgment in Sanjeev Kumar Samrat v. National
Insurance Co. Ltd. & others [2012 KHC 4730], wherein the apex
court held that statutory policy only covers the employees of the
insured, either employed or engaged by him in a goods carriage and it
does not cover any other kind of employee and therefore, someone
who travels not being an authorized agent in the place of the owner of
goods, and claims to be an employee of the owner of the goods, cannot
be covered by the statutory policy.
2025:KER:73314
..6..
6. The learned counsel for the claimant, on the other
hand, submitted that the deceased was sitting on the bumper of the
jeep and while the jeep was climbing upwards, its front wheels lost
contact with the road and when it was lifted upwards, the deceased
immediately jumped from the jeep. But, the jeep moved forward and
the deceased happened to be jammed between the jeep and a
retaining wall, causing fatal injuries, which led to losing his life.
According to the learned counsel for the claimant, at the time of the
accident, the deceased was no longer a passenger in the jeep and
since he jumped from the vehicle, he is to be treated as a third party,
and not a passenger.
7. Though in the claim petition, the claimants have
stated that the deceased was sitting in the jeep, during hearing, the
learned counsel for the claimants raised arguments that he was sitting
on the bumper of the jeep as stated in the charge sheet. According to
the learned counsel, when the accident occurred, the deceased was no
longer a passenger, but was a third party since he jumped out from the
bumper and touched the ground before the accident occurred, and
thus, the tribunal is right in finding that the deceased was a third
party and there is nothing wrong in the award passed. In order to
2025:KER:73314
..7..
substantiate the contentions, the learned counsel for the claimant
relied on the judgments in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v.
Omprakash & others [MANU/MP/O230/1993], Sivakumar
Transports v. Mani & others [MANU/TN/0276/1989], Ram Saroop
& others v. Balbir Singh & others [MANU/DE/0637/1987],
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. V.K.Sundaravalli & others
[MANU/TN/0087/1991], and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Kurva Yejju Mallamma & others [2007 ACJ 1735].
8. I have considered the rival contentions raised on both
sides. According to the insurer, since the vehicle was a goods vehicle
and the deceased was travelling on the bumper of the vehicle violating
the traffic rules and in violation of the provisions to the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988, he can neither be treated as a third party nor an authorized
passenger in the goods vehicle. No evidence was adduced to prove
that he was the owner of the goods or an authorised passenger.
Admittedly, a passenger, who is not the owner of the goods or his
authorised representative, is not permitted to travel in a goods vehicle.
It is also an admitted fact that the vehicle involved in the accident is a
pick-up jeep. Hence, carrying a passenger, who is not an authorised
person other than the driver of the vehicle, is indeed a violation of the
2025:KER:73314
..8..
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The policy taken in respect of the vehicle
involved in the accident was that of a goods vehicle. As per Ext.B1,
premium was paid only for owner/driver and paid driver. In the FIS
and the FIR, it is stated by the investigating officer that the deceased
was sitting in the vehicle, but in the final report, it was found that the
deceased was sitting on the bumper and he jumped from the bumper
and thus, sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries. There is no
dispute to the fact that the deceased, who was sitting on the bumper,
jumped out from the bumper when the front wheels lifted upwards and
thus, got jammed between the jeep and the retaining wall. He was
travelling by sitting on the bumper of the vehicle while it was loaded
with wood. Since the vehicle involved was a goods vehicle, the
provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, do not enjoin any statutory
liability on the owner of the goods vehicle to get his vehicle insured for
any passenger travelling in a goods vehicle. In New India Assurance
Co. Ltd. v. Vedwati & Ors. [2007 (9) SCC 486], the apex court held
as follows:
"13. The difference in the language of "goods vehicle" as
appear in the old Act and "goods carriage" in the Act is of
significance. A bare reading of the provisions makes it clear that
the legislative intent was to prohibit goods vehicle from carrying
any passenger. This is clear from the expression "in addition to
passengers" as contained in the definition of "good vehicle" in the
old Act. The position becomes further clear because the expression
used is "good carriage" is solely for the carriage of goods. Carrying
2025:KER:73314
..9..
of passengers in a goods carriage is not contemplated in the Act.
There is no provision similar to Clause (ii) of the proviso appended
to Section 95 of the old Act prescribing requirement of insurance
policy. Even Section 147 of the Act mandates compulsory coverage
against death of or bodily injury to any passenger of "public service
vehicle". The proviso makes it further clear that compulsory
coverage in respect of drivers and conductors of public service
vehicle and employees carried in goods vehicle would be limited to
liability under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (in short
'WC Act"). There is no reference to any passenger in "goods
carriage".
9. So, the pick-up jeep involved in the accident being a
goods vehicle, was not intended to carry any passenger over and
above the driver. The deceased, who was travelling by sitting on the
bumper of the jeep, was an unauthorized person travelling in the
vehicle, by violating the traffic rules. Nobody is permitted to travel
sitting on the bumper of the jeep or any other vehicle as per the
provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. He was a law violator. Being an
unauthorized person travelling in a vehicle and being involved in an
unlawful act, the argument of the learned counsel for the claimants
that the deceased is to be treated as a third party since he jumped
from the bumper of the vehicle before the collision occurred, lacks
merit. Adopting such a view would contravene the established legal
provisions of law as the deceased's travel on the bumper of the vehicle
was totally unauthorized. Since no persons are permitted to travel
sitting on the bumper of a goods vehicle, he can only be treated as an
2025:KER:73314
..10..
unauthorised passenger. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha
Rani [2003 KHC 22], the apex court held that the insurer will not be
liable for paying compensation to owner of goods or his authorised
representative on being carried in a goods vehicle when that meets
with an accident and the owner of goods or his representative dies or
suffers any bodily injury. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Cholleti
Bharatamma & others [2007 KHC 4125], it was held that the
provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, do not enjoin any statutory
liability on the owner of a goods vehicle to get his vehicle insured for
any passenger travelling in a goods carriage.
10. As regards the judgments relied on by the claimants,
they are all in respect of passengers in bus or truck or lorry, wherein
passengers or authorized persons are permitted to travel. In
Omprakash (supra), relied on by the claimants, the accident occurred
while the injured was alighting from a bus and it was held therein that
he was no more a passenger and would deem to be a third party. In
Sivakumar Transports (supra), the accident occurred while the
injured attempted to board the bus. In Ram Saroop (supra) and
Sundaravalli (supra), the accident occurred while the deceased was
getting down from the bus. In Kurva Yejju Mallamma (supra), the
2025:KER:73314
..11..
deceased was a passenger in a truck and in that case also, the
accident occurred while the injured was getting down from the truck.
In Saraswathy (supra), the deceased was a passenger in a lorry. In all
the afore cases, the injured or the deceased were all passengers either
in a bus or truck or lorry, wherein the owner of the vehicle is
permitted to carry authorized persons or the owner of the goods or the
additional passengers, whereas in the present case, being a goods
vehicle, no additional person were permitted to travel in the vehicle.
The deceased was travelling by sitting on the bumper, which is clearly
an unauthorized act. He cannot be treated as a third party since the
accident occurred only because he travelled in the vehicle
unauthorizedly sitting on the bumper. Therefore, the afore judgments
relied on by the claimants do not apply to the facts of the present case.
The deceased was permitted by the driver of the vehicle to travel by
sitting on the bumper of the vehicle. The vicarious liability, of course,
can be passed on to the owner for the act committed by the driver,
however, the insurer cannot be held liable to pay the compensation
awarded by the tribunal for an unauthorized passenger. The fact that
the deceased was sitting on the bumper of the jeep and jumped out
just before the accident would not change his status to that of a third
party as per the insurance policy. He can be treated only as an
2025:KER:73314
..12..
unauthorised passenger, who is not covered by the statutory insurance
policy. Accordingly, I hold that the deceased cannot be treated as a
third party and hence, the insurer cannot be fastened with the liability
to pay compensation. Therefore, the impugned award passed by the
tribunal, directing the insurer to pay the award amount is liable to be
set aside.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned award to
the extent of directing the insurer to pay the compensation awarded is
set aside.
SD/-
SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
JUDGE
bka/-
