Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 900 (MAD)

M. Alexpandian v. S. Rajagopal

2022-04-12

RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN

body2022
JUDGMENT (Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award, dated 06.03.2019, passed in M.C.O.P.No.102 of 2017 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Additional District and Sessions Court, Theni at Periyakulam.) 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the award dated 06.03.2019 made in M.C.O.P.No.102 of 2017, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal / Additional District and Sessions Court, Theni at Periyakulam. 2. The appellants herein are the claim petitioners in M.C.O.P.No.102 of 2017 challenging the award of the Tribunal, wherein the Insurance Company was exonerated from liability. 3. The claim petitioners have filed the claim petition alleging that on 23.06.2017, the deceased Muthumurugan was doing agricultural job for the first respondent – land owner and on that day around 12.00 noon, the first respondent has taken the deceased to do ploughing the land along with the metal attached to the tractor. At that time, when the first respondent was doing the ploughing, the deceased Muthumurugan was seated on the mud guard and when the tractor went near the bud closer to E.B. post, the supporting line for the E.B. post got in middle of the ploughing area. In the process, the first respondent without knowing the plough of the tractor had caught hold of the supporting cable of the electric post, proceeded further and consequently the E.B. post fell on Muthumurugan and due to electrocution, he died. So is the evidence of P.W.1. 4. Before the Tribunal, the insurance company has taken a plea that it is a tractor covered under Ex.R.2 policy and hence the deceased as a gratuitous passenger cannot sit on the mud guard, which amounts to violation of the policy condition and hence, the Insurance Company has to be exonerated. 5. In respect of the respective pleas, the son of the deceased is examined as P.W.1, one of the occurrence witness is examined as P.W.2 and Ex.P.1, FIR, Ex.P.2, Post-mortem Certificate were marked. On behalf of the respondents, R.W.1 to R.W.3 were examined. They are officials from Regional Transport Office and Insurance Company. Ex.R.1 is the driving license. Ex.R.2 is the policy copy marked through R.W.1, owner of the vehicle. Ex.R.6 is the insurance policy of the tractor. 6. On behalf of the respondents, R.W.1 to R.W.3 were examined. They are officials from Regional Transport Office and Insurance Company. Ex.R.1 is the driving license. Ex.R.2 is the policy copy marked through R.W.1, owner of the vehicle. Ex.R.6 is the insurance policy of the tractor. 6. On consideration of both the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the accident has takenplace due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor and accordingly fixed the responsibility on the first respondent. 7. The first respondent in his counter statement denied any such employment with the deceased person, assumes significance. 8. The manner of the accident as given in Ex.P.1, FIR, was duly spoken to by the occurrence witness P.W.2. It remains to be stated that it is a tractor without attachment of trailer. It also remains to be stated that for the tractor, the driver alone is permitted. As per the evidence of R.W.2, the driver of the tractor, does not have driving license on the date of the accident. Further, in the tractor only one person is allowed to sit, especially, when the tractor is without trailer. The said factual position has been reflected in Ex.R.1 and the evidence of P.W.2 and R.W.1. Taking into consideration that there is a violation of policy condition, the Tribunal has exonerated the Insurance Company. This appeal is filed by the claim petitioners challenging the exoneration of the liability of the Insurance Company. 9. In a similar set of facts, the Hon'ble Dr.Justice G.Jayachandran, in C.M.A.No.2147 of 2016 [The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Pollachi v. Murugammal and Others, decided on 21.09.2020] has held that there is neither contractual liability nor statutory liability for the Insurance Company in the instant case to indemnify the insured who has violated the policy condition by accommodating the unauthorised passengers in the mud guard of the tractor and also held that the Insurance Company is not liable. 10. In view of the above factual position as could be seen from the oral and documentary evidence and the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as followed in the above decision, the order of exoneration of liability of the Insurance Company by the Tribunal, cannot be found fault. 11. 10. In view of the above factual position as could be seen from the oral and documentary evidence and the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as followed in the above decision, the order of exoneration of liability of the Insurance Company by the Tribunal, cannot be found fault. 11. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the award dated 06.03.2019 made in M.C.O.P.No.102 of 2017, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal / Additional District and Sessions Court, Theni at Periyakulam, is confirmed. No costs.