Madras High Court
United India Insurance Company Ltd vs / on 13 November, 2025
Author: G.Jayachandran
Bench: G.Jayachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on :05.11.2025
Pronounced on :13.11.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR
C.M.A.No.2882 of 2021
and
C.M.P.No.16571 of 2021
United India Insurance Company Ltd.,
Represented by its Divisional Manager,
Third Party Claims HUB,
No.81, 2nd Floor, Katpadi Road,
Vellore. ...2nd Respondent/Appellant
/versus/
1.Ammu, aged about 35 years,
W/o Late Pandiyan
2.Sumitha, aged about 19 years,
S/o Pandiyan
3.Subash Chandra Bose,
Aged about 17 years, D/o Pandiyan
4.Sumitha,
Aged about 15 years, D/o Pandiyan,
All are residing at
1/25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 11:48:28 am )
Koothandava Kovil Street,
Valayampattu Post,
Vaniyambadi Taluk,
Vellore District.
Respondents 3&4 are declared as major and
their next friend and mother Ammu is discharged
from guardianship vide Court order dated
19.12.2023 made in C.M.P.Nos.20875 and
20879 of 2023 in C.M.A.No.2882 of 2021
by RSMJ and NSJ)
..Petitioners
5.Indirani, W/o Nagendiran,
residing at No.1/23
Valayampatttu Village and Post,
Vaniyambadi Taluk. ..1st Respondent/Respondents
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 173 of
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award and decree dated 28.10.2020
made in M.C.O.P.No.53 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal(Subordinate Judge), Vaniyambadi.
For Appellant :Mr.D.Bhaskaran
For Respondents :Ma.Pa.Thangavel for
Mr.T.S.Baskaran for R1 to R4
----------
2/25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 11:48:28 am )
JUDGMENT
DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.
The Appeal is directed against the award passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Judge, Vaniyambadi in M.C.O.P.No.
53 of 2016, vide order dated 28.10.2020.
2. The Appellant is the Insurer of the Eicher Tractor bearing
registration No:TN 23- BW 6974 (FIR, Insurance policy and RC indicates
the vehicle Number is TN 23 BW 6978) used for carrying sewage. The
owner of the vehicle is one Indirani, W/o Nagendiran. The accident victim
Pandian was working as a cooliee under her for loading and unloading the
sewage. The claimants are the wife and 3 children of late Pandian.
3.On 12.10.2015, at about 16.00 hrs. inside ‘Vani Tech Company’,
Valayampatti Campus, after loading sewage and proceeding to unload, the
tractor capsized after the driver of the tractor lost control due to the sudden
bursting of the front wheel tyre. In the said accident, the victim Pandian, who
was travelling in the tractor next to the driver got crushed. He was admitted
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 11:48:28 am )
in the hospital for treatment but succumbed to the injuries on 26.10.2015.
4.Case was registered by the Vaniyambadi Taluk Police in Crime
No:267 of 2015, under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC against the driver of the
tractor for causing death due to rash and negligent driving. Claiming
compensation of Rs.20 lakhs , the claim petition laid.
5.The Insurance company/the appellant herein contested the claim
both on liability and quantum. The complaint to the police given by the sister
of the victim was only on 27.10.2015, the next to the death and not on the
date of accident ie 12.10.2015. The complaint given belatedly without
assigning any reason for delay by a person, who is admittedly not a witness
to the accident, cannot be relied upon for the date, time and the cause of
accident.
6.The vehicle bearing registration No:TN 23 BW 6974 is a tractor
with a single seat for driver meant for agricultural purposes only. It is not for
transporting sewage. The insurance coverage is only for the tractor and not
for the trailer or any attachment to it. Additional premium of Rs.50/- is paid
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 11:48:28 am )
by the owner only to cover the driver and not others. Since the co-traveller is
not covered, the insurer is not legally liable to indemnify the owner of the
vehicle. Except the driver, no additional seating is permitted for the said
vehicle. The claimants admit that the victim was travelling in the tractor
sitting in the driver seat along with the driver. This is violation of policy
condition as well as permit condition. The accident occurred inside the
private premises and it was not a road accident for insurance coverage.
7.The Tribunal considering the rival submissions and after
examining PW-1, PW-2 and documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-18 relied by the
claimants and the oral evidence of RW-1 and RW-2, the documentary
evidence Ex.R-1, awarded compensation of Rs.23,76,000/- with interest at
the rate of 6% interest and ordered the insurance company to pay the same
and recover from the owner of the vehicle.
8.Mr.D.Bhaskaran, the Learned Counsel for the appellant
submitted that, the Tribunal failed to adjudicate the liability aspect properly.
It has ignored the terms of insurance policy and permit given to the vehicle.
Relying on overruled judgment, the Tribunal had awarded compensation and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 11:48:28 am )
ordered ‘pay and recovery’. As per The RC book for the vehicle, the seating
capacity is only one (i.e) for the driver. The permit is only for agricultural
purpose and not for commercial purpose to transport sewage. The vehicle is
not designed to carry any person other than the driver. The policy covers
only third party risk under IMT 28. Un-authorised passengers are not
covered in the policy.
9. In support of his argument, the following judgments are relied:-
(i)In HDFC ERCO General Insurance Co Ltd –vs- Bhagya
Rekha & others in C.M.A.No,1893 of 2020 dated 19.07.2023, this Court has
held that:
“IFFCO-TOKYO GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. V.
G.RAMESH (2012(1)TN MAC 820), this Court referring Asha
Rani's case and other judgments, has held as follows:-
“The question as to whether the Insurance
Company is statutory liable to cover the liability
in respect of risk of gratuitous passenger, is
clearly laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Asha Rani's case by reversing the earlier
decision in Saptal Singh's case and further
question as to whether the doctrine of “pay and
Recover” theory, which is applied till then, by
directing the insurer to satisfy the award and to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 11:48:28 am )
recover the amount from the insured even though
the insurer was not statutorily required to cover
the liability in respect of such passengers carried
in goods vehicle, is clarified in Full Bench
Judgment of our High court. As per which, after
the decidion of Baljit Kaur's case rendered on
06.01.2004 no such direction can be issued by
the Trial Court to the insurance Company on the
principle of “Pay and Recover” relating to the
liability in respect of risk of gratuitous passenger
travelling in a goods vehilce and no Trial Court
is expected to decide contrary to the decision
made thereon”.
(ii)In United India Insurance Co Ltd –vs- Lakshmanna and
others in C.M.A.No.496 of 2021 dated 03.08.2023, this Court observed that
“Rule 28 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules contains a direction
prohibition on persons, being allowed to travel in the mudguard of the
Tractor. When there is a statutory violation that persons, who travels in the
mud-guard is unauthorised passenger, we cannot burden the Insurance
Company with liability when it is not required to cover the risk of an
unauthorised passenger.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 11:48:28 am )
(iii)In Bharathi AXA General Insurance Co Ltd –vs- Aandi and
others reported in [2018 (2) TN MAC 731(DB)], this Court, in Para No.45,
has observed as under:-
45.In Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Brij
Mohan & ors., 2007(2) TN MAC 66(SC):2007(7)SCC 56,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the intention of the
Parliament was that the words “any person” occurring in
Section 147, will not cover all persons, who are travelling
in a goods carriage in any capacity whatsoever. It was
also found that the Tractor in question was used for Non-
Agricultural purpose, though, it had permit for
Agricultural purpose only. After having held that the
Insurance Company cannot be statutorily made liable, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court chose to exercise its power under
Article 142 of the Constitution of India to direct the
Insurance Company to pay the Compensation and gave
liberty to it to recover the same from the Insured/Owner of
the Tractor. We do not think that the said decision could
be used as a precedent to enable us to direct the Insurance
Company to pay with liberty to recover the Compensation
in respect of an injury caused to a person, who is found to
be a Gratuituous Passengers or a Passenger for hire or
reward in a Good Vehicle.”
(iv)In Gandhilingappa and others v. K.Guleppa and others
reported in [2021(2)TNMAC 116(FB)(Kar.)], wherein the High Court of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 11:48:28 am )
Karnataka has held in para No.22, which reads as below:-
“22. ......The Road Regulations have
been framed by the Central Government in exercise of its
powers under Section 118 of the M.V.Act Section 118 of
the M.V.Act which is under Chapter-VIII deals with the
control of traffic. Section 118 empowers the Central
Government to make Regulations for the driving of Motor
Vehicles by a Notification in the Official Gazette.
Regulation 28 of the Road Regulations which deals with
driving of Tractors and goods vehicles reads thus:
“28.Driving of Tractor and Goods vehilces-A
Driver when driving a Tractor shall not carry
or allow any person to be carried on the
Tractor. A Driver of Goods Carriage shall
not carry in the Driver's cabin more number
of persons than that is mentioned in the
Regulation Certificate and shall not carry
passengers for hire or reward”.
Hence, by virtue of the above Regulation, a
Driver of a Tractor is not permitted to carry or allow any
person to be carried on a Tractor including on its mud-
guard.”
10. Per contra, Mr. Ma.Pa. Thangavel, the Learned Counsel for the
respondents/claimants submitted that, the deceased victim was travelling in
the tractor as loadman. He falls under the category of ’Employee’ as defined
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 11:48:28 am )
under Section 2(dd) of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923. The vehicle
is a special type vehicle fitted with a tanker for transporting sewage. For
loading and unloading the sewage, the victim was employed by the owner of
the vehicle. The additional premium paid for driver is enough to cover the
loadman. The delay in lodging FIR was not the fault of the claimants. The
hospital authorities failed to report the matter immediately to the police
which is mandatory. The accident occurred inside the private premises, is not
excluded from claiming compensation, since the accident involved a motor
vehicle. Referring Section 147 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 2(dd) of
Employees Compensation Act, 1923 and the following judgments sought for
dismissal of the appeal.
(i)In Shivaraj –vs- Rajendra & another reported in
[(2018)10SCC 432], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in para 10 as
under:-
“10.The High Court, however, found in favour of
respondent 2(insurer) that the appellant travelled in the tractor as a
passenger which was in breach of the policy condition, for the tractor
was insured for agriculture purposes and not for carrying goods. The
evidence on record unambiguously pointed out that neither was any
trailer insured nor was any trailer attached to the tractor. Thus, it would
follow that the appellant travelled in the tractor as a passenger, even
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 11:48:28 am )
though the tractor could accommodate only one person, namely, the
driver. As a result, the Insurance Company (Respondent 2) was not
liable for the loss of injuries suffered by the appellant or to indemnify
the owner of the tractor. That conclusion reached by the High Court, in
our opinion, is unexceptionable in the fact situation of the present case.”
(ii)In Anu Bhanvara & others –vs- IFCO TOKIO GENERAL
INSURANCE Co. Ltd. & others reported in [(2020) 20 SCC 632], the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held in para 9, which is extracted as below:
“9.The next question is as to which of the
respondents, that is, the owner and driver, or the insurer of the
vehicle, would be liable for payment of such compensation. As
regard the liability for payment of compensation, it has been
contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that since the
vehicle was admittedly insured with respondent 1 insurance
company, the principle of pay and recover would be invoked
even in case of gratuitous passenger in a goods vehicle. The
insurance company should thus be made liable for the payment of
compensation to the appellants and in turn they would have the
right to realise/recover the same from the owner and driver of the
vehicle. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the
appellants has relied on the following decisions of this Court,
namely, Manuara Khatun v. Rjesh kumar Singh [(2017)4 SCC
796], Puttappa v.Rama Naik [2018 SCC Online SC 3496],
National Insurance Co.Ltd., v. Saju P.Paul[(2013)2 SCC41];
New India Assurance Co.Ltd., v. Vimal Devi [2010 SCC Online
SC 49]; National Insurance Co.Ltd v. Challa Upendra Rao
[(2004)8 SCC 517], New India Assurance Co.Ltd. v. C.M.Jaya
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 11:48:28 am )
[(2002) 2 SCC 278] and Amrit Lal Sood v. Kaushalya Devi
Thapar [(1998) 3 SCC 744]”
(iii)In Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co Ltd –vs-
Honnamma & others reported in [2025 (1) TN MAC 783 (SC)], wherein the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held in paragraph No.10 as under:-
10. On a careful reading and analysis of the decision in
Amrit Lal Sood [(1998) 3 SCC 744] it is clear that the view taken by the
Court is no different. In this decision also, the case of Jugal Kishore
[(1988) 1 SCC 626: 1988 SCC (Cri) 222] is referred to. It is held:
(i) that the liability of the insurer depends on the terms
of the contract between the insured and the insurer
contained in the policy;
(ii)there is no prohibition for an insured from entering
into a contract of insurance covering a risk wider than
the minimum requirement of the statute whereby risk to
the gratuitous passenger could also be covered; and
(iii)in such cases where the policy is not merely
statutory policy, the terms of the policy have to be
considered to determine the liability of the insurer.
Hence, the Court after noticing the relevant clauses in
the policy, on facts found that under Section II(1)(a) of the policy,
the insurer has agreed to indemnify the insured against all sums
which the insured shall become legally liable to pay in respect of
death of or bodily injury to “any person”. The expression “any
person” would undoubtedly include an occupant of the car who is
gratuitously travelling in it. Further, referring to the case of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 11:48:28 am )
Pushpabai Purshottam Udeshi [(1977) 2 SCC 745] it was observed
that the said decision was based upon the relevant clause in the
insurance policy in that case which restricted the legal liability of
the insurer to the statutory requirement under Section 95 of the Act.
As such, that decision had no bearing on Amrit Lal Sood case
[(1998) 3 SCC 744] as the terms of the policy were wide enough to
cover a gratuitous occupant of the vehicle. Thus, it is clear that the
specific clause in the policy being wider, covering higher risk,
made all the difference in Amrit Lal Sood case [(1998) 3 SCC 744]
as to unlimited or higher liability. The Court decided that case in
the light of the specific clause contained in the policy. The said
decision cannot be read as laying down that even though the
liability of the Insurance Company is limited to the statutory
requirement, an unlimited or higher liability can be imposed on it.
The liability could be statutory or contractual. A statutory liability
cannot be more than what is required under the statute itself.
However, there is nothing in Section 95 of the Act prohibiting the
parties from contracting to create unlimited or higher liability to
cover wider risk. In such an event, the insurer is bound by the terms
of the contract as specified in the policy 15 in regard to unlimited
or higher liability as the case may be. In the absence of such a term
or clause in the policy, pursuant to the contract of insurance, a
limited statutory liability cannot be expanded to make it unlimited
or higher. If it is so done, it amounts to rewriting the statute or the
contract of insurance which is not permissible.
11. The point for determination in this appeal is whether, the
appellant has to first pay the compensation awarded to the claimants
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 11:48:28 am )
and then recover it from the vehicle owner, in view of the alleged permit
and policy violation ?
12. Ex.P-1 is the FIR dated 27.10.2015 reporting the accident
occurred on 12.10.2015 at about 4.00 p.m. The informant is one
Thanjammal, who happens to be the sister of the victim Pandian. The
complaint lodged only after the death of Pandian, (i.e) 15 days after the
accident. As per the FIR, the victim went in the tractor to load sewage from
the Tannery ‘Vani Tech Company’, the front tyre of the tractor busted and
Pandian, who was sitting next to the driver Saravanan fell into the sewage
drainage. He was taken to the Government Hospital at Vaniyambadi for
treatment. Later, he was shifted to the Government Hospital at Chennai. He
died in the hospital on 26.10.2015 at 9.00 p.m.
13. Karthikeyan (PW-2) claims to be an eye witness to the
accident. He in his proof affidavit filed in lieu of chief examination had
sworn to the fact that he as driver of another tractor waiting in Vani Tech
Company for unloading the leather waste, saw the tractor bearing registration
No:TN 23 BW 6978 driven rash and negligently by its driver Saravanan. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 11:48:28 am )
tractor capsized due to the bursting of the front wheel tyre. Pandian, who was
sitting next to the driver, lost his balance and fell into the sewage channel
and sustained injuries. He was taken to the hospital for treatment.
14. The claimants have marked a hand written Accident Register
Copy purported to have been issued by G.Haripriya, presumable Doctor in
the Out Patient ward. In Ex.P-3, it is recorded that the patient Pandian was
brought to the hospital by one Selvam (co-worker), alleged history of upside
down of tractor,while he (Pandian) was driving the tractor in side th
company on 12.10.2015 at 4.30 p.m. We see in Ex.P-3, the word ‘working’
struck off and the words ‘ driving the tractor’ is written. In the AR, there is
no reference of bursting of front tyre, which was cause for capsizing. This
omission gains relevance because we find that, the tractor alleged to have
involved in the accident was not sent for motor vehicle inspection. The
owner of the vehicle, who is supposed to inform the police as well as the
insurer had not informed about the accident. Therefore, it is not certain
whether really the accident was due to the sudden bursting of front tyre or
due to any other reason. However, the report of the investigating officer of
the insurance company which is marked as Ex.R-1 through its Assistant
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 11:48:28 am )
Manager RW-1 states that the police report indicates the tractor capsized due
to the bursting of front tyre suddenly, the driver lost control.
15. Ex.P-2 is the policy note for the vehicle bearing registration
No: TN 23 BW 6978 and Ex.P-6 is the RC copy of the said vehicle. The
scrutiny of these two exhibits reveals that the tractor involved in the accident
is classified as tractor for Agricultural purposes only. The type of body
‘open’ with one seat for the driver. The insurance policy is only for third
party risks, with additional premium for the paid driver.
16. When the permit and policy for the offending vehicle does not
mandate the insurance company to pay compensation for the claimants, the
Tribunal has ordered pay and recover.
17. The march of law regarding the judicial principle ‘Pay and
Recover’ capsulated as below :
18. In New India Assurance Co. v. Kamla reported in [(2001) 4
SCC 342)], the appellant Insurance Company denied liability to the claimant
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 11:48:28 am )
on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle had no valid driving
license, hence, there was breach of policy condition. The Hon’ble Supreme
Court said;- :
“25…. The insurer and the insured are bound by the
conditions enumerated in the policy and the insurer is not liable
to the insured if there is violation of any policy condition. But
the insurer who is made statutorily liable to pay compensation
to third parties on account of the certificate of insurance issued
shall be entitled to recover from the insured the amount paid to
the third parties, if there was any breach of policy conditions on
account of the vehicle being driven without a valid driving
licence. Learned counsel for the insured contended that it is
enough if he establishes that he made all due enquiries and
believed bona fide that the driver employed by him had a valid
driving licence, in which case there was no breach of the policy
condition. As we have not decided on that contention it is open
to the insured to raise it before the Claims Tribunal. In the
present case, if the Insurance Company succeeds in establishing
that there was breach of the policy condition, the Claims
Tribunal shall direct the insured to pay that amount to the
insurer. In default the insurer shall be allowed to recover that
amount (which the insurer is directed to pay to the claimant
third parties) from the insured person.”
19. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh reported in
[(2004) 3 SCC 297)], Bench of 3 learned Judges, while considering the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 11:48:28 am )
question whether a third party involved in an accident is entitled to the
amount of compensation granted by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal
although the driver of the vehicle at the relevant time might not have a valid
driving licence, held insurer should pay and would be entitled to recover the
same from the owner or driver thereof.
20.Recently, in a case of deviation of route permit by the bus
driver, confirmed the pay and recovery order of the Karnataka High Court
saying, “ the purpose of an insurance policy in the present context is to shield
the owner/operator from direct liability when such an unforeseen/unfortunate
incident takes place. To deny the victim/dependants of the victim
compensation simply because the accident took place outside the bounds of
the permit and, therefore, is outside the purview of the insurance policy,
would be offensive to the sense of justice, for the accident itself is of no fault
of his. Then, the Insurance Company most certainly ought to pay”.
21. It had also added, “at the same time though, when an Insurance
Company takes on a policy and accepts payments of premium in pursuance
thereto, it agrees to do so within certain bounds. The contract lays down the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 11:48:28 am )
four corners within which such insurance policy would operate. If that is the
case, to expect the insurer to pay compensation to a third party, which is
clearly outside the bounds of the said agreement, would be unfair.” (K.
Nagendra v. The New India Insurance Co. Ltd., and others reported in
2025 INSC 1270)
22. In this case, Ex.P-1 policy indicates that the vehicle owner
under IMT 28 had paid basic premium for third party risk and additional
premium for the driver and/or conductor and / or cleaner employed in
connection with the operation of insured vehicle. The case of the learned
counsel for the claimants is that, the deceased as load man covered under the
policy.
23. This argument is not sustainable, since the design of the
vehicle is single seated open vehicle. That seat is for driver and coverage is
only for driver. The tractor registered for agricultural purpose, carrying
sewage is not within the operation of the vehicle for which it is meant and
registered. In Shivaraj –vs Rajendra and another(cited supra) relied by the
Learned Counsel for the claimants, the policy cover was for 1 + 4 persons,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 11:48:28 am )
therefore, the Hon'ble Apex Court reversed the dismissal of the claim by the
High Court and upheld the Tribunal award granted to the claimants ordered
pay and recovery. This is a case of passenger travelled in the trailer attached
to a tractor with one seat.
24. In so far as mudguard travel, the Division Bench of this Court
following Asha Rani case (2004 (2) TN MAC 387 (SC)), in IFFCO TOKYO
General Insurance Co –vs- V.G.Ramesh (cited supra) and in HDFC ERGO
General Insurance Co. Ltd. –vs- Bhagaya Rekha (cited supra), has held that
‘pay and recovery’ principle cannot be applied. Another Division Bench of
this Court in Bharathi AXA General Insurance Co –vs- Aandi and others
(cited supra) had categorically held that, ‘Pay and Recover’, as statutorily
recognised in Section 149(4) and (5), not applicable ipso facto to passengers
in Goods Vehicle, unless such passenger is owner or agents of the owner of
goods. In Aandi judgment, it is clarified that the judgments of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Sivaraj –vs- Rajendra and others (cited supra) rendered by
two Judges Bench cannot be taken as precedent, in view of the larger Bench
decision in Asha Rani and Baljit Kaur cases.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 11:48:28 am )
25. Coming to Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, on a
plain reading of Sub-clause (1) of Clause (b) of the Sub-Section 1 of Section
147, the words 'carried in the vehicle' must be held to be qualifying 'owner of
the goods' or 'his authorised representative'.
Section 147(b)(1) reads as under:-
(1)against any liability which may be
incurred by him in respect of the death of or bodily
injury to any person, including owner of the goods or
his authorised representative carried in the vehicle or
damage to any property of a thrid party caused by or
arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place.
26. Section 147 provides for mandatory insurance. The policy of
insurance in terms of the said provision must be in relation to the person or
classes of person specified in the policy sought to be insured. The insurance
would be against any liability which the insured incurs.
27. Thus, the Insurance Policy should, inter alia, be in respect of
death or bodily injury of the person carried in the vehicle. Such person may
be the owner of the goods or his authorised representative.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 11:48:28 am )
28. To conclude, we are of the view, the expression, ‘any person’
occurring in Section 147, will not cover all persons travelling in the tractor.
The extra premium paid under IMT 28 covers only the
driver/conductor/cleaner. This cannot be extended to a person travelling in
the tractor next to the driver alone. More particularly, when the vehicle is
designed with single seat meant for the driver. The Hon’ble Supreme Court
in exercise of its power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India in
exceptional cases had applied the principle of pay and recover in cases
lacking contractual obligation on the part of the Insurance Company, taking
into consideration of other socio-economic factors in order to do complete
justice.
29. In this case, as observed, the accident was reported to the
police after 15 days. The case of the claimants is that the victim lost balance
and fell into the sewage drain from the tractor. Except a hand written AR
copy with no seal or indication from where it emanated and the death
certificate there is no evidence to know the cause of death or the nature of
injuries the victim sustained. The tractor registered for agricultural purpose
and not for commercial use. The Counsel pleads that it is specially designed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 11:48:28 am )
vehicle for carrying sewage. If so, the same will be reflected in the RC. On
examining the RC as well as the investigation report Ex.R1, we find no such
indication. Hence, we find, a clear violation of permit condition. The terms
of the insurance policy and the premium paid does not cover any person
travelling in the tractor, except the driver. As the Hon’ble Supreme Court
observed in its recent judgment rendered in Nagndra –vs- United India
Insurance Company reported in [2025 INSC 1270], the Insurance Company
takes on a policy and accepts payments of premium in pursuance thereto, it
agrees to do so within certain bounds. The contract lays down the four
corners within which such an insurance policy would operate. If that is the
case, expecting the insurer to pay compensation to a third party, which is
clearly outside the bounds of the said agreement, would be unfair.
30. As a result, C.M.A.No.2882 of 2021 is allowed. The award
passed in M.C.O.P.No.53 of 2016 dated 28.10.2020 to the extent of ordering
the appellant to pay and recover alone is set aside. The claimants –
Respondents are at liberty to proceed against the owner of the vehicle, who is
the first respondent in the claim petition/Appeal. Consequently, connected
Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No order as to costs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 11:48:28 am )
(Dr.G.J.J.) & (M.S.K.J.)
13.11.2025
Index:yes
Internet:yes
Speaking order/non speaking order
Neutral citation:yes/no
ari
To
The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal
(Subordinate Judge), Vaniyambadi.
Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.
and
MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR,J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 11:48:28 am )
ari
Delivery Judgment made in
and
13.11.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 11:48:28 am )
