Madras High Court
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs S.Balamurugan on 22 November, 2023
Author: N.Seshasayee
Bench: N.Seshasayee
C.M.A No.650 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 22.11.2023
CORAM
MR.JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE
C.M.A.No.650 of 2022
and C.M.P.No.4621 of 2022
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
No.1, Bharathi Road, Arcot Woodlands Building,
Cuddalore. ... Appellant
Vs.
1.S.Balamurugan
2.Minor S.Sasidhar
(Minor rep. by his guardian
N/F father S.Balamurugan)
3.P.Vadamalai
... Respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Acct, 1988, seeking to set aside the judgment and decree made
in MCOP.No.2412 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal (Principal District Judge), Cuddalore dated 26.08.2019.
For Appellant : Mr.M.Krishnamoorthy
For Respondents : Ms.Ramya V.Rao for R1 to R3
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/4
C.M.A No.650 of 2022
JUDGMENT
The road accident took place on 19.02.2015 on Puduvai -
Kandamangalam road. A goods carrier bearing Regn.No.TN-31-BS-0149
carrying 20 passengers capsized. One of those passengers was killed
whose heirs preferred M.C.O.P.No.2412 of 2015, seeking compensation
against the owner and insurance company of the goods carrier in
question. The Tribunal had found that the vehicle was a goods carrier and
also found that the victim was a gratuitous passenger and then
determined the compensation payable at Rs.10,22,000/- and fastened the
liability jointly on the owner and the insurance company of the vehicle. It
also directed the insurance company to pay and recover the
compensation. This is under challenge.
2.Learned counsel for the appellant / insurance company contended that
even in the F.I.R registered at the instance of one of the passengers who
was traveling in the goods carrier at the relevant time, all the passengers,
who were then traveling, were returning after participating in a
condolence. This implies that they are not load men accompanying good
but are mere gratuitous passengers. There is no insurance cover for
these gratuitous passengers. Therefore, in fitness of things, the Tribunal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
ought to have directed the owner to pay the entire compensation and the
award to the extent to the insurance company to pay and recover is
erroneous.
3.Ms.Ramya V.Rao, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3,
submitted that the entire case narrates the involvement of a motorcycle
bearing Registration No.PY-01-BB-9288, suddenly appearing before the
goods carrier, and to avoid a collusion with that motorcycle, the driver of
the goods carrier applied a sudden break, which resulted in the accident.
In the eventuality of this Court allowing this appeal, the claimants may be
permitted to proceed against the other offending motorcycle against
whom the FIR has been registered.
4.The learned counsel for the appellant would now intervene to share
information that vis-a-vis the claims of others who traveled along with
the respondents in this case, their claims were settled only by the
insurance company of the motorcycle that was responsible for the
ocurrance of the accident.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
N.SESHASAYEE, J.
Anu
5.This Court has little hesitation in allowing this appeal since the
claimants have traveled only as a gratuitous passenger. The claimants,
however, is at liberty to prefer a fresh claim against the owner of the
motorcycle bearing No.PY 01 BB 9288 within the framework of law.
6.In conclusion, this appeal stands allowed, and the award passed by the
Tribunal is set aside. This Court is informed that the insurance company
has deposited 50% of the amount awarded by the Tribunal. The
appellant is now at liberty to withdraw the same. No Costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
22.11.2023
Anu
Index: Yes/No
Speaking Order / Non-Speaking Order
Neutral Citation: Yes / No
To
The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal
(Principal District Judge), Cuddalore.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
