P.Prasanth vs K.Amudha
2022 Latest Caselaw 14988 Mad

                                                                               C.M.A.No.2991 of 2017

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                    DATED: 07.09.2022

                                                        CORAM:

                                      THE HONOURABLE Ms.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA

                                                  C.M.A.No.2991 of 2017

                  P.Prasanth                                                     ... Appellant

                                                          vs.

                  1.K.Amudha

                  2.The New India Assurance Company Limited,
                  Represented by its Branch Manager,
                  No.39C, Bye-pass Road,
                  Dharmapuri Town & Taluk – 636 701.                            ... Respondents

                  PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
                  Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and Decree of the Motor Accident
                  Claims Tribunal and Chief Judicial Magistrate Court at Dharmapuri, dated
                  08.09.2017 in M.C.O.P.No.419 of 2016.


                                  For Appellant      : Mr.K.Selvakumar

                                  For Respondents    : Mr.J.Chandran [R2]
                                                       R1 – Served – No Appearance




                  1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                C.M.A.No.2991 of 2017



                                                      JUDGMENT

The petitioner before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal

(Principal District Judge) Dharmapuri aggrieved by the Award passed in

M.C.O.P.No.419 of 2016 is the appellant herein.

2. In the above claim petition, the Tribunal had passed an Award

for a sum of Rs. 4,68,556/-, but however fastened the entire liability on the

first respondent owner of the TATA ACE vehicle on the ground that the

petitioner was an unauthorised passenger. Considering the limited issue in

the above appeal, I do not intend to narrate the facts of the case. Suffice it to

state that the appellant herein was travelling in a TATA ACE vehicle as a

representative of the owner of the goods that was being carried in the vehicle,

which belongs to the first respondent. The appellant had deposed that she

was sitting along with the driver in the cabin of the vehicle and since the

insurance policy was a package policy, the Tribunal below erred in holding

that the appellant was a gratuitous passenger and that the second

respondent-Insurance Company was not liable to indemnify the first

respondent, owner of the TATA ACE.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.2991 of 2017

3. The learned counsel for the second respondent-Insurance

Company would submit that the appellant was travelling in the body of the

vehicle along with the goods and was a gratuitous passenger. Therefore, the

Award passed by the Tribunal is very much in order.

4. A perusal of Ex.P3, which is the Registration Certificate of

the vehicle would clearly show that the seating capacity is two numbers. The

second respondent-Insurance Company has not let in evidence to show that

besides the driver and the appellant, there were some other persons, who

were travelling in the vehicle, coupled with the fact that there is no denial to

the statement made by the appellant in Column No.23 of the claim statement.

The finding of the Tribunal that the appellant is a gratuitous passenger has to

necessarily be set aside. Further, Ex.A4-Insurance Policy is the package

policy and covers third party risk.

5. Therefore, in view of the above, the Award passed by the

Tribunal inasmuch as the entire liability fastened on the first respondent is

set aside and the second respondent-Insurance Company as the insurer of the

first respondent shall deposit the entire Award amount of Rs.4,68,556/- to

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.2991 of 2017

the credit of M.C.O.P.No.419 of 2016 together with interest at the rate of

7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit and

costs as awarded by the Tribunal within a period of six weeks from the date

of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit being made, the

claimant is permitted to withdraw the amount as awarded by the Tribunal

along with interest and costs, as apportioned by the Tribunal, after adjusting

the amount if any already withdrawn. If any amount is deposited by the first

respondent as directed by the Tribunal, the same shall be withdrawn by the

first respondent. In other respects, the Award of the Tribunal is hereby

confirmed. There shall be no order as to costs in the present appeal.

                                                                                    07.09.2022
                  Index          : Yes / No
                  Speaking Order : Yes / No
                  srn

                  To
                  1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
                     and Chief Judicial Magistrate Court,
                     Dharmapuri,

                  2. The Section Officer,
                     V.R.Section,
                     High Court of Madras,
                     Chennai.


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                       C.M.A.No.2991 of 2017



                                          P.T.ASHA, J.,

                                                        srn




                                  C.M.A.No.2991 of 2017




                                              07.09.2022





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