Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2040 (MAD)

K. Kuppusamy v. Jothi

2022-07-12

P.T.ASHA

body2022
JUDGMENT : P.T. ASHA, J. PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and decree passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Chief Judicial Magistrate) Cuddalore in M.C.O.P. No. 29 of 2009, dated 19.07.2016 for awarding compensation. 1. The appellant is the first respondent before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuddalore) in M.C.O.P. No. 29 of 2009 dated 19.07.2016. 2. The respondents 1 to 5/claimants are the wife and children of one Nallathambi, who had died in a road accident on 19.11.2008. The claimants would contend that the said Nallathambi, who is aged about 30 years, was a mason, earning a sum of Rs.250/- per day. On 13.11.2008 at about 14.30 hours, he was travelling on the Othiyadikuppam to Thirumanikuzhi Road in a tipper loaded with paddy, which was being towed by a tractor bearing Registration No. TN 31 AA 5905. The said Nallathambi was seated on the gunny bags, which was fully loaded on the tipper. The driver of the tractor was driving the same in a rash and negligent manner and as a result of this, the hook of the tipper got released from the tractor, as a result of which, Nallathami had fallen down on the road and sustained grievous injuries. He was rushed to the Government Hospital at Cuddalore for first aid and later referred to the Government Hospital, Puducherry and treated for the injuries sustained in the accident. Despite the best efforts of the Doctors, the said Nallathambi died on 19.11.2008. The claimants therefore sought for a compensation of a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-. 3. The appellant/first respondent had entered appearance and filed his counter, in which, he would submit that the accident had occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor. He would submit that the vehicle had a valid RC, insurance and the Driver is also licenced to drive the vehicle. He would deny the income set forth by the claimants as also the occupation of the deceased. The first respondent would take up a plea that the tractor is insured and since the tipper is attached to the tractor, there was no necessity to take a separate insurance for the tipper. He would further submit that since there is a valid policy coverage, the Insurance Company is liable to compensate the appellants. 4. The first respondent would take up a plea that the tractor is insured and since the tipper is attached to the tractor, there was no necessity to take a separate insurance for the tipper. He would further submit that since there is a valid policy coverage, the Insurance Company is liable to compensate the appellants. 4. The second respondent-Insurance Company has filed a counter inter-alia contending that the Tractor alone was insured with them. The tipper was not insured with the second respondent-Insurance Company. They had further contended that the driver of the first respondent did not have a valid driving licence and the tractor did not possess a valid permit, fitness and registration certificate at the time of accident. Therefore, they would submit that they are not liable to compensate the claimants. In the additional written statement, they would further submit that the tipper was not registered as per the Motor Vehicles Act. In the RC book of the first respondent's vehicle, only the tractor has been registered and not the tipper. Therefore, there is a violation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. 5. Admittedly, the deceased had travelled in the tipper at the time of the accident and the insurance Company had denied the contention of the first respondent that since the tipper is attached to the tractor, the tipper would also be covered by the policy taken for the tractor. 6. The Tribunal below, after considering the evidence, by its order dated 19.07.2016, held that the accident had occurred only on account of the driving of the driver of the first respondent's tractor. The Tribunal has not framed an issue with reference to the liability of the second respondent to pay the compensation. However, the Tribunal has held that the appellant/ first respondent has violated the permit Rules and therefore, the Insurance Company was not liable to compensate the claimants and ultimately, proceeded to pass an Award for a sum of Rs.4,94,000/- directing the appellant first respondent to pay the same. Aggrieved by the same, appellant/first respondent is before this Court. 7. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record. 8. Admittedly, the tipper is not covered under Ex.R2-Insurance Policy as also Ex.R1-R.C.Book. The insurance has been taken only in respect of the tractor. Aggrieved by the same, appellant/first respondent is before this Court. 7. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record. 8. Admittedly, the tipper is not covered under Ex.R2-Insurance Policy as also Ex.R1-R.C.Book. The insurance has been taken only in respect of the tractor. The deceased, even according to the appellant, was travelling in the tipper and that too sitting on the fully loaded paddy bags. The deceased has to be treated as an unauthorised passenger, since even according to the appellant herein, he was a mason. The goods that were carried in the tipper were paddy bags. Therefore, it cannot be said that the claimant was either a load man or an authorised representative of the owner of the goods. That apart, the deceased was seated in the tipper over the gunny bags and therefore, he can only be treated as an unauthorised passenger. The tipper is not registered, which is a clear violation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. Further, the tipper is not a vehicle meant for transporting passengers. Therefore, on this ground also, the order passed by the Tribunal has to be upheld. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs.