Madras High Court
Alagarsamy vs Jeganraja on 3 September, 2024
C.M.A.(MD) No.604 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 03.09.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
C.M.A.(MD) No.604 of 2019
Alagarsamy. ... Appellant
Vs.
1.Jeganraja,
2.Branch Manager,
National Insurance Company Limited,
T.S.No.4132, East Main Road,
Pudukottai Town & District. ... Respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under 173 of the Motor Vehicle
Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 12.02.2019 passed in
M.C.O.P.No.184 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal/Additional District Court, Pudukottai.
For Appellant : Mr.N.Balakrishnan
For Respondents
for R1 : Given up
for R2 : Mr.J.S.Murali
*****
JUDGMENT
The instant appeal has been filed challenging the finding on
liability.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2. The appellant/claimant filed a claim petition stating that on
13.01.2014 at about 8.00 p.m., while he was traveling in the goods
vehicle, bearing Reg.No.TN-55-AB-1624, insured with the second
respondent herein, the driver drove the same in a rash and negligent
manner, as a result of which, the vehicle collapsed and the
appellant/claimant sustained grievous injuries.
3. The second respondent filed a counter denying the averments in
the claim petition and stated that in any case, the claim made by the
appellant was excessive.
4. The owner of the vehicle/first respondent remained ex parte
before the Tribunal.
5. Before the Tribunal, the appellant examined himself as P.W.1
and another witness, namely, Rajammal, as P.W.2 and marked Exs.P1 to
P11. The second respondent examined two witnesses as R.W.1 and R.W.2
and marked Exs.R1 and R2.
6. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
evidence, awarded the compensation of Rs.75,000/- to the appellant
herein; however, directed the first respondent/owner of the vehicle to pay
the compensation since the first respondent had violated the policy
conditions by allowing unauthorised passengers to travel in the goods
vehicle.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submitted that the
issue is covered by the judgment of this Court in Manjula and others vs.
M.Sakthivel and others reported in (2019) 2 TN MAC 188, wherein this
Court has observed that Rule 236 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles
Rules, 1989, permits six persons to travel in the goods vehicle.
8. The learned counsel for the second respondent/Insurance
Company, per contra, submitted that the finding of the Tribunal holding
that the owner of the vehicle is liable to pay compensation is in
accordance with law and no interference is called for.
9. The only point for consideration in the instant appeal is ‘whether
the second respondent is liable to pay the compensation?’
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
10. The evidence adduced on either side shows that six persons
traveled in the goods vehicle. Under similar circumstances, this Court in
Manjula’s case (cited supra), by quoting Rule 236 of the Tamil Nadu
Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, which permits six persons to travel in a
goods vehicle, held that merely because six persons travelled in a goods
vehicle, they would not become unauthorised passengers.
11. The relevant observation of the judgment of this Court in
Manjula’s case (cited supra) is extracted herein:
“24.Section 147(1) of the Motor Vehicles
Act was amended in the year 1994 by Act 54 of
1994, which came into effect from 14.11.1994.
As per amendment to Section 147 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, the owner of goods as well as his
Authorized Representatives are covered by the
policy issued by the Insurance Company. As per
permit condition, only three persons can travel
in the Cabin. In the present case, the
respondents have not substantiated their
contention that two persons were already
travelling in the Cabin. As per Rule 236 of
Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, six persons
can travel in goods vehicle. The issue whether
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the Insurance Company is liable to pay
compensation for owner of goods, who travelled
in the goods vehicle along with goods, was
considered by this Court in the judgments
referred to above relied on by the learned
counsel for the appellants.”
12. In the light of the evidence on record, that six persons traveled
in the goods vehicle and in view of the aforesaid judgment, this Court is
of the view that the second respondent is liable to pay the compensation.
Therefore, the award of the Tribunal is modified to the extent of holding
that the second respondent is liable to pay the compensation.
13. The second respondent shall, therefore, deposit the
compensation amount of Rs.75,000/- with accrued interest at 7.5% p.a.,
from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization (excluding
the period of dismissal for default if any) and costs, less the amount
already deposited, if any, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date
of receipt of a copy of this order.
14. On such deposit, the appellant/claimant is entitled to withdraw
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the aforesaid amount together with proportionate interest and costs, less
the amount already withdrawn, if any, by filing an appropriate application
before the Tribunal.
15. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. No
costs.
03.09.2024
Index: Yes/ No
NCC: Yes / No
Speaking Order / Non-Speaking Order
apd
To:
1.Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Additional District Court,
Pudukottai.
2.The Record Keeper,
V.R.Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
apd
03.09.2024
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
