The appellant/2nd respondent has preferred the above appeal in CMA No:2362 of 2002 against the judgement and decree passed in MCOP.No.79 of 1999 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge) Pudukottai, dated 8.11.2001. By the said decree and judgment, the Learned Tribunal, Pudukottai, awarded a sum of Rs.2,07,000/= with interest at the rate of 9% per annum in favour of the claimants.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-
On 5.5.1998, the deceased, Vidangan travelled along with his sisters i.e., claimants 3 and 4 in a Tractor bearing Registration No.TN-55-4830, with an attached Trolley bearing Registration No. TN-53-4831, to the village K.Rasiyamangalam to participate in a temple festival. The driver of the Tractor had driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and while the Tractor was going on the west side of the K.Rasiyamangalam road, the Driver of the Tractor turned the Tractor suddenly. In the result, the deceased Vidangan lost his balance and fell down, and the front tyre of the Tractor ran over him, resulting in the death of Vidangan, on the spot. Immediately, he was taken to the Hospital for postmortem. The said accident happened due to the rash driving of the driver of the 1st respondent/owner of the vehicle. So, the parents and sisters of the deceased Vidangan have filed the Claim Petition claiming a total compensation of Rs.5 lakhs.
(ii) The appellant/2nd respondent filed a counter statement and resisted the claim stating that the vehicle involved in the accident was only meant for the purpose of carrying agricultural produce. Further, the Tractor had carried 5 persons at the relevant period which violates the conditions laid down in the policy and also vehicle permit condition under the Motor Vehicles Act. In the said Tractor, 5 persons had travelled for attending a temple festival at K.Rasiyamangalam village. The deceased was an unauthorised passenger. Further, the accident happened due to the negligence of the deceased. The policy specifically covers only for carrying of goods within the meaning of the Motor Vehicles Act. The 1st respondent/owner of the vehicle has violated the terms and conditions of the policy. So, the owner of the vehicle alone is liable to pay compensation, if any. Further, the insurance company stated that it does not admit the age, income and other status of the deceased. The claimants are not the legal heirs of the deceased. The claim of Rs.5 lakhs is an excessive one. As such, the Insurance Company contended that it is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants.
(iii) The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed two issues, viz., (1) Whether the respondents are liable to pay compensation to the claimants?
(2) If so, what is the quantum of compensation to which the claimants are entitled to?
(iv) On the side of the respondents/claimants, the 2nd petitioner was examined as P.W.1, who had marked 3 documents on her side as Exs.P.1, P.2 and P.3, namely, (i) FIR, (ii) Postmortem Certificate of the deceased and (iii) Judgment of the Judicial Magistrate, Alangudi in the Criminal Case. On the other side, 2 witnesses were examined as R.W.1 and R.W.2. R.W.1 is one Meenakshi Sundaram, Assistant of Regional Transport Office and R.W.2 is one Mr.Kannadasan, employee of National Insurance Company/Appellant herein.
(v) On an oral and documentary evidence of both sides, the learned Tribunal has come to a conclusion that on the basis of the judgment of the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Alangudi, passed in C.C.No.17 of 1998, dated 18.8.1998, the respondents are liable to pay compensation due to rash and negligent driving of the Driver of the 1st respondent/owner of the Tractor. Further, the learned Magistrate has come to a conclusion that the respondents 1 and 2 are jointly, severally and statutorily liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. R.W.1, Mr.Meenaskhi Sundaram, Assistant of Regional Transport Office, Pudukottai admitted that he never produced any document relating to the Tractor in question, neither had he furnished any specific order relating to the prescribed members for traveling in the Tractor.
(vi) P.W.1 has clearly given evidence about the manner and occurrence of the accident. Supporting her case, FIR, Criminal Case Proceedings, Postmortem Certificates were produced which proved her case. The Tribunal awarded the compensation on various heads which are mentioned below:
i) For loss of income Rs.1, 70,000/=
ii) For loss of precious life Rs. 50,000/=
iii) For Love and Affection Rs. 20,000/=
iv) For Funeral expenses Rs. 5,000/=
v) Financial assistance to unmarried sisters Rs. 15,000/=, in total, Rs.2,07,000/= was awarded with interest at the rate of 9% per annum by the learned Tribunal from the date of filing the Claim Petition.
3. The National Insurance Company/Appellant challenged the Award stating that the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants, because the vehicle involved in the accident is to be used only for agricultural purposes as per policy and permit conditions. The learned Tribunal has failed to note that the risk of persons travelling in a Tractor Trolley is not required to be covered under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, nor is covered under terms of policy and as such the insurer cannot be made liable to pay the compensation. Further, the learned Tribunal has failed to note that the scope of the policy in respect of goods carriage vehicle wherein coolies were required to be covered is totally different from the policy covering a Tractor Trolley authorised to be used for agricultural purpose and the risk of persons carried in the vehicle was not contemplated under the Act or under the terms and conditions of the Policy.
4. The learned counsel for the respondents/claimants has referred the below mentioned judgments in support of their case:
(i) 2005 (2) TN MAC (DB) 345, (United India Insurance Ltd., Tiruvannamalai Vs. Selvam and others);
(ii) 2004 (1) TN MAC 1 (SC) (National Insurance Co.,Ltd., Vs. Baljit Kaur & others); and
(iii) 2007 (2) TN MAC 66 (SC) (Oriental Insurance Co.,Ltd., Vs. Brig.Mohan and others)
5. In the decision United India Insurance Ltd., Tiruvannamalai Vs. Selvam and others, reported in 2005 (2) TN MAC (DB) 345, a Division Bench of this Court has held as follows:-
"Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,
Section 147(1)(b)(i) - Goods Vehicle - Gratuitous Passengers - Liability of Insurer - Policy not covering passengers in vehicle except 6 employees other than driver - No evidence that injured- claimants were under employment of owner of vehicle - whether gratuitous passengers in goods vehicle entitled to compensation at hands of Insurance Company - In view of amendment to 1988 Act by 1994 Amendment to S.147 and laws laid by Supreme Court particularly decision in Baljit Kaur, 2004(2) SCC 1:2004 (1) TN MAC 1, gratuitous passengers for whom no insurance premium paid, not covered by words "any person" - Insurer, therefore, not liable - Though position of law is in favour of Insurance Company, will have prospective effect from date of judgment of Supreme Court, I.e. 6.1.2004 - And, for erstwhile cases, position of law is that insurance company will have to pay and recover from owner of vehicle - Accident took place on 12/13.4.1999 much prior to date of judgment of Supreme Court (6.1.2004) - Insurance Company, therefore, directed to satisfy award amount and recover same from owner of vehicle simply filing Execution Petition before Executing Court without filing a separate Suit."
6. In National Insurance Co.,Ltd., Vs. Baljit Kaur & others, reported in 2004 (1) TN MAC 1 (SC), the Honourable Supreme Court has held as under: " Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.147 (as amended by Motor VEhicles (Amendment) Act, 1994) - Goods Vehicle - Gratuitous passengers? - Words " any person" in S.147(1)(b)(i) would only cover a third party as also owner of goods or his authorized representative - But, not passengers carried in goods vehicle whether for hire or reward or otherwise - Owner of goods or his authorized representative would not be covered by policy of insurance in respect of goods vehicle - But, legislative intention was not to provide for liability of insurer with respect of gratuitous passengers for whom no insurance policy envisaged nor any premium paid.
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.147 (as amended by 1994 Act) - Goods Vehicle - Liability of insurer - Gratuitous passenger - Compensation claim in respect of - Claims Tribunal directing Insurance Company to pay compensation - Verdict upheld by High Court - Appeal - Gratuitous passenger, held not covered by policy - Appeal - Gratuitous passenger, held not covered by policy of insurance in respect of a goods vehicle in view of 1994 Amendment - Trial Court as also High Court proceeded in terms of Satpal Singh (200 (10 SCC 237) which is overruled in Asha Rani (2003 (2) SCC 223) - instead of insurer, owner of vehicle, held liable to satisfy the decree - Legal position shall have prospective effect - Appellant, Insurance Company directed to satisfy awarded amount in favour of claimant and recover same from owner of vehicle - Insurer need not file separate suit for such recovery but may initiate proceeding before executing Court as if dispute between insurer and owner was the subject matter of determination before Tribunal and issue is decided against owner and in favour of insurer - Directions issued having regard to scope and purport of S.168, M.V. Act, 1988. Interpretation of Statutes - It is incumbent upon a Court of law to eschew that interpretation of a statute that would serve to negate its true import or to render words of any provision as superfluous - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.147 - Amended by Motor Vehicle (Amendment) Act, 1994 - Effect of 1994 amendment on S.147 unambiguous - Words "any person" in S.147 earlier (before amendment) could be held not to include the owner of goods or his authorized representative travelling in goods vehicle - Parliament now by amendment made it clear that such a construction is no longer possible - However, scope of this rationale does not extend to cover gratuitous passengers for whom no insurance policy was envisaged nor insurance premium paid - Doctrine of suppression of mischief rule adumberated in Heydon's case applicable. Doctrine of Suppression of Mischief Rule (Heydon's Rule - Applicable in order to suppress mischief was intended to be remedied as against literal rules which could have otherwise covered the filed"
7. In an another decision in Oriental Insurance Co.,Ltd., Vs. Brig.Mohan and others, reported in 2007 (2) TN MAC 66 (SC), the Honourable Supreme Court held that, "Gratuitous Passenger- Injured travelled in Trolley attached with Tractor
- Trolley not insured - Tractor used for purpose other than agricultural purpose
- Violation of conditions of Policy - Insurer held not responsible - However, taking note of fact that Injured-claimant is a poor labourer who suffered grievous injuries and became disabled to great extent, Supreme Court exercising jurisdiction under
Art.142 r/w
Art.136 directed Insurer to satisfy award amount and recover same from Insured/owner of Tractor - It is well settled that in a situation of this nature Supreme Court in exercise of jurisdiction under
Art.142 r/w
Art.136 can issue suitable directions for doing complete justice to parties."
8. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the insurance company and the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondent/Claimant and considering the judgement and decree of the learned Tribunal and perusal of the documentary evidence, this Court is of the view that the Award of the Tribunal is fair and equitable. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge) Pudukottai is confirmed. This Court directs the Insurance Company to deposit the balance compensation amount in the credit of MCOP.No.79 of 1999 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Pudukottai within six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The claimants have already been permitted by this Court to withdraw 50% of their respective shares by an order passed in CMP.No:16994 of 2002. After depositing the balance compensation amount, the claimants are permitted to withdraw their shares as per the Award of the Tribunal. The connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed and the parties are directed to bear their own costs in the appeal.
JIKR Copy to:
1) The Principal District Judge, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal) Pudukottai.