Madras High Court
Branch Manager vs Minor. Arunkumar on 23 August, 2021
CMA Nos.2888, 2889, 2890,
2891, 2893, 2894 & 2895 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 23.08.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
CMA Nos.2888, 2889, 2890, 2891,
2893, 2894 & 2895 of 2015
and
MP Nos.1,1,1,1,1,1 and 1 of 2015
In CMA No.2888 of 2015
Branch Manager,
United India Insurance Company Ltd.,
G.P.M. Street, Ambapuram,
Gudiyatham. ...Appellant
versus
1. Minor. Arunkumar,
rep by next friend, natural guardian
mother Savithri.
2. Sambath Prabhakaran. ... Respondents
Prayer in CMA No.2888 of 2015: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed
under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the award and decree
dated 10.07.2014 made in OP No.86 of 2009 on the file of the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub Court), Gudiyatham, Vellore District.
For Appellant in all CMAs : Mr.D. Bhaskaran
For Respondents in all CMAs : Served - No appearance
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA Nos.2888, 2889, 2890,
2891, 2893, 2894 & 2895 of 2015
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Heard video conference)
These appeals have been filed by the Insurance Company
challenging the common award passed by Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, Sub-court Gudiyatham, Vellore district in M.C.O.P Nos. 31, 32,
35, 84, 85, 86 and 106 of 2009.
2. Heard Mr.D. Bhaskaran, learned counsel for the appellant /
Insurance Company and Mr.T.Dhanyakumar, learned counsel for the 1st
respondent in all CMAs.
3. This Court has perused and examined the impugned common
award passed by the Tribunal.
4. The Appellant / Insurance Company has challenged the impugned
common award on the ground that the accident victims were all gratuitous
passengers in the insured goods vehicle and therefore, they are not liable
to pay the compensation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA Nos.2888, 2889, 2890,
2891, 2893, 2894 & 2895 of 2015
5. Therefore, according to the Appellant / Insurance Company, the
Tribunal has erroneously granted pay and recovery rights against the
Appellant Insurance Company in favour of the respondents / claimants.
6. Admittedly, as seen from the respective claim petitions filed in
the aforesaid M.C.O.P.s, the accident victims were all travelling in the
insured van bearing Registration No. TN-39–H-5789 when the accident
happened on 15.08.2008.
7. Admittedly, as per the Insurance Policy which has been marked as
Ex.R1 before the Tribunal, the van can carry only three persons in the
cabin including the driver and they must all be employees of the owner
(insured). In the case on hand, all the accident victims were all travelling in
the place meant for storing the goods and not in the cabin. Admittedly, as
seen from the deposition of the witnesses on the side of the claimants and
as per the FIR which has been marked as Ex.P1, before the Tribunal, it is
clear that all the accident victims were travelling in the insured van, only
for the purpose of attending a Temple festival. In their respective claim
petitions also, there is no pleading that they were employees of the owner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA Nos.2888, 2889, 2890,
2891, 2893, 2894 & 2895 of 2015
of the vehicle(insured). The Tribunal has also given a finding under the
impugned common award that all the accident victims were gratuitous
passengers, but erroneously by total non application of mind to the settled
law has directed the Appellant Insurance Company to pay the determined
compensation and recover the same from the insured(owner), thereafter.
8. The liability under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act will
arise only when the claimant satisfies the conditions stipulated therein.
9.In the case on hand, when the evidence available on record
categorically will lead to the conclusion that the accident victims are
gratuitous passengers, the question of liability of the Appellant Insurance
Company under Section 147 of Motor Vehicles Act will not arise and the
question of pay and recovery will also not arise.
10. Since, the Appellant / Insurance Company is not liable to
compensate the claimants, as the accident victims are all gratuitous
passengers, this Court is of the considered view that the following
decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the Appellant / Insurance
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA Nos.2888, 2889, 2890,
2891, 2893, 2894 & 2895 of 2015
Company squarely supports the case of the Appellant / Insurance
Company as it is the settled law on the issue on hand.
a) Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd., Versus Sudhakaran K.V. & Ors reported in 2008
SCC Online SC 931.
b) Judgment of this Court, dated 10.09.2020 in the case of United
India Insurance Company Ltd., versus Selvi and others
10. For the foregoing reasons, the common award dated 10.07.2014
passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Sub Court), Gudiyatham,
Vellore District in M.C.O.P Nos.31, 32, 35, 84, 85, 86 and 106 of 2009
are hereby set aside and these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are allowed.
However, insofar as the award passed against the owner of the vehicle is
concerned, the same is confirmed. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed.
11. It is made clear that the appellant / Insurance Company is
permitted to withdraw the amount, if any deposited by them before the
Tribunal, after the passing of the impugned award by filing an appropriate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA Nos.2888, 2889, 2890,
2891, 2893, 2894 & 2895 of 2015
application.
23.08.2021
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order
vsi2
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
vsi2
To
1. The Sub Judge,
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Gudiyatham,
Vellore District.
2. The Section Officer,
V.R. Section
High Court of Madras, Chennai - 104.
CMA Nos.2888, 2889, 2890,
2891, 2893, 2894 & 2895 of 2015
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA Nos.2888, 2889, 2890,
2891, 2893, 2894 & 2895 of 2015
24.08.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
