Madras High Court
The Divisional Manager vs Kala ... 1St on 8 April, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 08.04.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
C.M.A.Nos. 2282 & 2283of 2017
The Divisional Manager,
M/s. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited,
Raj Tower, 2nd Floor,
2nd Avenue, Plot No.2054,
Anna Nagar, Chennai - 600 040. ...Appellant
Vs.
1. Kala ... 1st Respondent in CMA 2282/2017
2. Kuppusamy ... 1st Respondent in CMA2283/2017
3. Selvakumar .... 2nd Respondent in both CMAs
Prayer in C.M.A. No.2282 of 2017:
Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and Decree made in
M.C.O.P.No.252 of 2013 dated 27.12.2016 on the file of the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate Court,
Thiruvannamalai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
2
Prayer in C.M.A. No.2282 of 2017:
Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and Decree made in M.C.O.P.
No.253 of 2013 dated 27.12.2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvannamalai.
For Appellant : Mr.M.B.Raghavan
[in both CMAs]
For R1 : Mr.Terry Chella Raja
[in both CMAs] for M/s. M.Malar
For R2 : No Appearance
[in both CMAs]
-----
COMMON JUDGMENT
Challenging the pay and recovery order passed by the Tribunal, the
appellant/Insurance Company filed Civil Miscellaneous Appeals against
the Judgment and Decree passed in M.C.O.P. Nos.252 & 253 of 2013
dated 27.12.2016 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief
Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvannamalai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
2. Mr.M.B.Raghavan, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant in both appeals submitted that in the present case there was no
coverage for the claimants who had travelled in the vehicle in an
unauthorized manner. The Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the
claimants are the unauthorized passengers who travelled in the vehicle,
but it has wrongly directed the appellant/Insurance Company to pay the
compensation and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle.
3. The main contention of the counsel is that when there was no
coverage to cover the present claimants, the question of making the
payment and thereafter, to recover the amount does not arise. Further, he
referred to Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and submitted
that only the passengers who travelled in the public vehicles and any
person including the owner of the goods or his authorized representative
carried in the vehicle or damage to any property of the third party caused
by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place only covered
under the policy.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
4. It was further submitted that any person referred to under
Section 147 (b) (1) would mean that any third party including the owner of
the goods or his authorized representative who travelled along with the
goods in the vehicle. Any person referred therein would mean only the
third parties and it would not cover the person who travelled in an
unauthorized manner in the vehicle and in terms of Section 147(1) (b) (1),
it would cover only the person who travelled as the owner along with his
goods in the vehicle and all other persons who travelled will not be
covered. Therefore, he would submit that in the present case having come
to the conclusion that the claimants are unauthorized passengers, the
Tribunal should not have ordered to pay and recovery, as there was no
coverage to cover the risk of unauthorized passengers.
5. The counsel would further submit that only in case if there is
any breach of the conditions of the policy, the pay and recovery is
permissible. In case, if the particular risk is not covered, the question of
pay and recovery does not arise. Therefore, he would submit that the
judgment and decree passed by the Tribunal to the extent directing the
Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount and thereafter,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
recover from the owner is liable to be set aside.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the
respondents would submit that the claimants are not unauthorized
passengers. They have travelled only in the course of employment in the
vehicle only as loadmen. In fact, the vehicle carried these claimants only
as loadmen to harvest and load the sugarcane. This fact has been clearly
dealt with by the Tribunal and it has come to the conclusion that the
claimants have travelled not in the capacity as owner of the goods but as a
coolie to harvest and load the sugarcane. Therefore, he would submit that
the question of unauthorized passengers does not arise, they have travelled
only as a loadmen which would very well cover under the policy of
insurance available to the vehicle.
7. This Court heard the submission of the learned counsel on
either side, and perused the judgment and decree passed by the Tribunal.
On perusal of the judgment and decree would show that the claimants
have travelled as loadmen to harvest and load the sugarcane and the
Tribunal has also recorded that the claimants have travelled not as a owner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
of the goods but as a coolie. The factum of reason of the coolie travelling
in the vehicle also recorded by the Tribunal as for the purpose to harvest
and to load the sugarcane. Therefore, it is clear that they have travelled as
loadmen and not as a owner.
8. However, the Tribunal recorded that they are the
unauthorized passengers who travelled against the policy conditions. Law
is settled that if there is any person who travelled as loadmen, the
insurance coverage to the vehicle would be extended to the loadmen also.
When such being the case, the question of treating the claimants as
unauthorized passengers who travelled against the violation of the policy
conditions does not arise. Therefore, I do not find any merits in these
appeals and find no substance in the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the appellant. Further I do not find any infirmities in the
judgment of the Tribunal with regard to the fixation of liability against the
appellant insurance Company. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that
there is no error, in the judgment of the Court below. Thus, the judgment
and decree passed by the Tribunal made in M.C.O.P. Nos.252 and 253 of
2013 by order dated 27.12.2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvannamalai, is hereby
confirmed.
9. Accordingly, both the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are
dismissed. No costs.
08.04.2021
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order : Yes/No
msm
To
1. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal
Chief Judicial Magistrate Court,
Thiruvannamalai District.
2. The Section Officer,
V.R.Section, High Court,
Chennai-104.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.
msm
C.M.A.Nos. 2282 & 2283of 2017
08.04.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
