The Hindu Business Line : Travelling in goods carriage — Madras HC dismisses compensation plea

THE Madras High Court has held that the insurer would not be liable for paying compensation to the owner of the goods being carried in a goods vehicle when the vehicle meets with an accident and the owner dies or suffers any bodily injury.

A Division Bench comprising Mr Justice P. Sathasivan and Mr Justice S.R. Singaravelu, while hearing an appeal against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, observed that Rule 238 prohibited carrying persons in a goods carriage upon the goods or otherwise in such a manner that such person was in danger of falling from the vehicle. The deceased was among the persons being carried in a goods vehicle along with paddy bags.

The deceased travelled in a goods vehicle, which was contrary to the statutory provision of Rule 238 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 and also that no additional premium was paid to cover the risk of non-fare passengers and also in the light of the legal position as it stood prior to the amendment of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the objection raised for payment of the compensation by the insurance company was sustained.

Considering the conduct of the deceased and also the fact that the owner and the driver of the vehicle had permitted the deceased to travel in the goods carriage, which met with the accident, the Bench was of the view that the action of the owner and the driver was nothing but in violation of the above rule. Thus, they were liable for action for breach of statutory provision (Rule 238).

In respect of death of one Thopai Konar in a road accident on February 24, 1994, his wife, daughters and son had prayed for a compensation of Rs 1,50,000. The Tribunal at Tiruvannamalai, after holding that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the driver of the lorry in question, passed an award for Rs 51,000, and directed the owner of the vehicle to pay the amount. Questioning the said award, the owner had preferred the present appeal.

The deceased was travelling in the lorry, along with 31 paddy bags, when it met with an accident following which he fell down and sustained fatal injuries.

The Bench noted that the lorry was insured with the 7th respondent (United India Insurance Co Ltd, Chennai). It was contended on behalf of the insurance company that except third party insurance and premium for driver and cleaner, no additional premium was paid for non-fare passengers. Prior to the amendment of 1994 in the Motor Vehicles Act, it was not necessary for the insurer to insure against the owner of the goods or his authorised representative being carried in a goods vehicle.

Citing a Supreme Court judgement, the Bench said it was clear that an owner of a passenger carrying vehicle must pay premium for covering the risks of the passengers. If a liability other than the limited liability provided for under the Act was to be enhanced under an insurance policy, additional premium was required to be paid.

Considering the conduct of the deceased and also the fact that the owner and the driver had permitted the deceased to travel in the goods carriage, which met with the accident, the action of the owner and the driver was nothing but in violation of the rule. Thus, they were liable for action for breach of statutory provision, the Bench held.

The Bench did not find any merit in the appeal; consequently it was dismissed.

More Stories on : Courts/Legal Issues | Accidents

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page

Stories in this Section
Qatar Air to recruit more cabin crew from India

Travelling in goods carriage — Madras HC dismisses compensation plea