Kerala High Court
Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd vs Usha on 7 October, 2025
2025:KER:73314
MACA No.670/2019
..1..
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
TUESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 15TH ASWINA, 1947
MACA NO. 670 OF 2019
OPMV NO.366 OF 2016 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THODUPUZHA
APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT:
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD
1ST AND 2ND FLOOR, VISHNU BUILDINGS, K.P.VALLONE ROAD,
KADAVANTHRA, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, REGIONAL
OFFICE, ERNAKULAM.
BY ADVS.
SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (SR.)
SMT.K.S.SANTHI
SMT.LATHA SUSAN CHERIAN
RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANTS 1-3 AND RESPONDENTS 4 & 5:
1 USHA
W/O.SAHADEVAN, THAMARAKATTE HOUSE, MANIYARANKUDY KARA,
MANIYARANKUDY.P.O., IDUKKI VILLAGE.
2 VISHNU.T.S.
S/O.SAHADEVAN, THAMARAKATTE HOUSE, MANIYARANKUDY.P.O.,
IDUKKI VILLAGE.
3 GRESHMA.T.S.(MINOR)
AGED 14 D/O.SAHADEVAN, DATE OF BIRTH 01/06/2004,
THAMARAKATTE HOUSE, MANIYARANKUDY KARA,
MANIYARANKUDY.P.O., IKDUKKI VILLAGE, REPRESENTED BY
HER MOHTER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN USHA W/O.SAHADEVAN)
2025:KER:73314
MACA No.670/2019
..2..
4 SONY
S/O.MATHEW, MANAPPURATHU HOUSE, PALLITHAZHAM BHAGAM,
VAZHATHOPPU, IDUKKI VILLAGE, IDUKKI KSEB COLONY.P.O.
5 SIBY JOSEPH
KUZHIKANDATHIL HOUSE, PANNIMATTAM.P.O., PANNIMATTAM,
THODUPUZHA-685588.
BY ADVS.
SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K)
SRI.BINU PAUL
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING
ON 23.09.2025, THE COURT ON 07.10.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:73314
MACA No.670/2019
..3..
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been filed by the third respondent insurer in OP(MV) No. 366 of 2016 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thodupuzha, challenging the liability and quantum of compensation awarded to the claimants. Respondents 1 to 3 herein were the claimants and respondents 4 & 5 herein were respondents 1 & 2 before the tribunal.
2. The case of the claimants was that on 23.10.2015, the deceased, who was a timber loading worker, while accompanying goods in a jeep bearing Reg.No.KL-5G/5888 driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner, the front tyres of the jeep lost contact with the road when climbing upwards and the jeep was lifted upwards and then, the deceased jumped out of the jeep. When the jeep moved forward, the deceased happened to be jammed between the jeep and a retaining wall, whereby he sustained fatal injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the way to hospital. The claimants, being the legal heirs of the deceased, approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹25,00,000/-.
2025:KER:73314 MACA No.670/2019 ..4..
3. The first respondent/driver of the offending vehicle filed a written statement, denying negligence. The second respondent/owner of the offending vehicle remained ex parte before the tribunal. The third respondent insurer filed a written statement, admitting the policy coverage for the offending vehicle, but disputing the liability and quantum of compensation claimed. Before the tribunal, Exts.A1 to A9 and B1 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, held that the accident took place on account of the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle and awarded a sum of ₹12,96,000/- as compensation under different heads with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization against the third respondent being the insurer. The third respondent insurer has come up in appeal, challenging the liability and the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal.
4. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant/respondent insurer and the learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3/claimants.
5. The learned Standing Counsel for the insurer submitted that the deceased was an unauthorised passenger in a goods vehicle and hence, was not covered by a policy of insurance, 2025:KER:73314 MACA No.670/2019 ..5..
however, though the said contention was raised before the tribunal, the tribunal fastened the liability on the insurer finding that the deceased was a third party at the time of the accident, which is per se illegal. According to the learned Standing Counsel, the allegation that he was accompanying the goods is not correct and he was neither an owner nor a representative of the owner of the goods, whereas, he was travelling by sitting on the bumper of the jeep by violating traffic rules. It is further submitted that the contention that the deceased was a loading worker and was travelling in the vehicle in connection with the work is not proved and he cannot be treated as a third party and the insurer cannot be held liable to pay the compensation awarded by the tribunal. To buttress the arguments, the learned Standing Counsel relied on the judgment in Sanjeev Kumar Samrat v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & others [2012 KHC 4730], wherein the apex court held that statutory policy only covers the employees of the insured, either employed or engaged by him in a goods carriage and it does not cover any other kind of employee and therefore, someone who travels not being an authorized agent in the place of the owner of goods, and claims to be an employee of the owner of the goods, cannot be covered by the statutory policy.
2025:KER:73314 MACA No.670/2019 ..6..
6. The learned counsel for the claimant, on the other hand, submitted that the deceased was sitting on the bumper of the jeep and while the jeep was climbing upwards, its front wheels lost contact with the road and when it was lifted upwards, the deceased immediately jumped from the jeep. But, the jeep moved forward and the deceased happened to be jammed between the jeep and a retaining wall, causing fatal injuries, which led to losing his life. According to the learned counsel for the claimant, at the time of the accident, the deceased was no longer a passenger in the jeep and since he jumped from the vehicle, he is to be treated as a third party, and not a passenger.
7. Though in the claim petition, the claimants have stated that the deceased was sitting in the jeep, during hearing, the learned counsel for the claimants raised arguments that he was sitting on the bumper of the jeep as stated in the charge sheet. According to the learned counsel, when the accident occurred, the deceased was no longer a passenger, but was a third party since he jumped out from the bumper and touched the ground before the accident occurred, and thus, the tribunal is right in finding that the deceased was a third party and there is nothing wrong in the award passed. In order to 2025:KER:73314 MACA No.670/2019 ..7..
substantiate the contentions, the learned counsel for the claimant relied on the judgments in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Omprakash & others [MANU/MP/O230/1993], Sivakumar Transports v. Mani & others [MANU/TN/0276/1989], Ram Saroop & others v. Balbir Singh & others [MANU/DE/0637/1987], National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. V.K.Sundaravalli & others [MANU/TN/0087/1991], and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kurva Yejju Mallamma & others [2007 ACJ 1735].
8. I have considered the rival contentions raised on both sides. According to the insurer, since the vehicle was a goods vehicle and the deceased was travelling on the bumper of the vehicle violating the traffic rules and in violation of the provisions to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, he can neither be treated as a third party nor an authorized passenger in the goods vehicle. No evidence was adduced to prove that he was the owner of the goods or an authorised passenger. Admittedly, a passenger, who is not the owner of the goods or his authorised representative, is not permitted to travel in a goods vehicle. It is also an admitted fact that the vehicle involved in the accident is a pick-up jeep. Hence, carrying a passenger, who is not an authorised person other than the driver of the vehicle, is indeed a violation of the 2025:KER:73314 MACA No.670/2019 ..8..
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The policy taken in respect of the vehicle involved in the accident was that of a goods vehicle. As per Ext.B1, premium was paid only for owner/driver and paid driver. In the FIS and the FIR, it is stated by the investigating officer that the deceased was sitting in the vehicle, but in the final report, it was found that the deceased was sitting on the bumper and he jumped from the bumper and thus, sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries. There is no dispute to the fact that the deceased, who was sitting on the bumper, jumped out from the bumper when the front wheels lifted upwards and thus, got jammed between the jeep and the retaining wall. He was travelling by sitting on the bumper of the vehicle while it was loaded with wood. Since the vehicle involved was a goods vehicle, the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, do not enjoin any statutory liability on the owner of the goods vehicle to get his vehicle insured for any passenger travelling in a goods vehicle. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Vedwati & Ors. [2007 (9) SCC 486], the apex court held as follows:
"13. The difference in the language of "goods vehicle" as appear in the old Act and "goods carriage" in the Act is of significance. A bare reading of the provisions makes it clear that the legislative intent was to prohibit goods vehicle from carrying any passenger. This is clear from the expression "in addition to passengers" as contained in the definition of "good vehicle" in the old Act. The position becomes further clear because the expression used is "good carriage" is solely for the carriage of goods. Carrying 2025:KER:73314 MACA No.670/2019 ..9..
of passengers in a goods carriage is not contemplated in the Act. There is no provision similar to Clause (ii) of the proviso appended to Section 95 of the old Act prescribing requirement of insurance policy. Even Section 147 of the Act mandates compulsory coverage against death of or bodily injury to any passenger of "public service vehicle". The proviso makes it further clear that compulsory coverage in respect of drivers and conductors of public service vehicle and employees carried in goods vehicle would be limited to liability under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (in short 'WC Act"). There is no reference to any passenger in "goods carriage".
9. So, the pick-up jeep involved in the accident being a goods vehicle, was not intended to carry any passenger over and above the driver. The deceased, who was travelling by sitting on the bumper of the jeep, was an unauthorized person travelling in the vehicle, by violating the traffic rules. Nobody is permitted to travel sitting on the bumper of the jeep or any other vehicle as per the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. He was a law violator. Being an unauthorized person travelling in a vehicle and being involved in an unlawful act, the argument of the learned counsel for the claimants that the deceased is to be treated as a third party since he jumped from the bumper of the vehicle before the collision occurred, lacks merit. Adopting such a view would contravene the established legal provisions of law as the deceased's travel on the bumper of the vehicle was totally unauthorized. Since no persons are permitted to travel sitting on the bumper of a goods vehicle, he can only be treated as an 2025:KER:73314 MACA No.670/2019 ..10..
unauthorised passenger. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani [2003 KHC 22], the apex court held that the insurer will not be liable for paying compensation to owner of goods or his authorised representative on being carried in a goods vehicle when that meets with an accident and the owner of goods or his representative dies or suffers any bodily injury. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Cholleti Bharatamma & others [2007 KHC 4125], it was held that the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, do not enjoin any statutory liability on the owner of a goods vehicle to get his vehicle insured for any passenger travelling in a goods carriage.
10. As regards the judgments relied on by the claimants, they are all in respect of passengers in bus or truck or lorry, wherein passengers or authorized persons are permitted to travel. In Omprakash (supra), relied on by the claimants, the accident occurred while the injured was alighting from a bus and it was held therein that he was no more a passenger and would deem to be a third party. In Sivakumar Transports (supra), the accident occurred while the injured attempted to board the bus. In Ram Saroop (supra) and Sundaravalli (supra), the accident occurred while the deceased was getting down from the bus. In Kurva Yejju Mallamma (supra), the 2025:KER:73314 MACA No.670/2019 ..11..
deceased was a passenger in a truck and in that case also, the accident occurred while the injured was getting down from the truck. In Saraswathy (supra), the deceased was a passenger in a lorry. In all the afore cases, the injured or the deceased were all passengers either in a bus or truck or lorry, wherein the owner of the vehicle is permitted to carry authorized persons or the owner of the goods or the additional passengers, whereas in the present case, being a goods vehicle, no additional person were permitted to travel in the vehicle. The deceased was travelling by sitting on the bumper, which is clearly an unauthorized act. He cannot be treated as a third party since the accident occurred only because he travelled in the vehicle unauthorizedly sitting on the bumper. Therefore, the afore judgments relied on by the claimants do not apply to the facts of the present case. The deceased was permitted by the driver of the vehicle to travel by sitting on the bumper of the vehicle. The vicarious liability, of course, can be passed on to the owner for the act committed by the driver, however, the insurer cannot be held liable to pay the compensation awarded by the tribunal for an unauthorized passenger. The fact that the deceased was sitting on the bumper of the jeep and jumped out just before the accident would not change his status to that of a third party as per the insurance policy. He can be treated only as an 2025:KER:73314 MACA No.670/2019 ..12..
unauthorised passenger, who is not covered by the statutory insurance policy. Accordingly, I hold that the deceased cannot be treated as a third party and hence, the insurer cannot be fastened with the liability to pay compensation. Therefore, the impugned award passed by the tribunal, directing the insurer to pay the award amount is liable to be set aside.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned award to the extent of directing the insurer to pay the compensation awarded is set aside.
SD/-
SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN JUDGE bka/-