CMA(MD)/948/2018 of ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE Vs ROACH ANTHONY MINOR RAJ @ on 2 November 2026

JUDGMENT

The second respondent in M.C.O.P.No. 218 of 2007, on the file of the

Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Principal Sub Judge, Tenkasi, has filed the present C.M.A.(MD).No.948 of 2018, challenging the award dated 31.03.2011 passed in the said claim petition.

2. Facts of the case:

2.1. According to the claimant, on 28.05.2007 at about 2.30 a.m., he was travelling in a Maruti car bearing Registration No.TN-76-Z-5176 along the Pudukkottai–Thanjavur Main Road. The driver of the said vehicle drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against a roadside tree. In the said accident, two persons died and the claimant sustained injuries. He was admitted in the hospital and, thereafter, filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-.

2.2. The appellant-Insurance Company contested the claim petition by denying its liability. According to the appellant, the vehicle was covered only for the permitted number of occupants and the vehicle had been carrying more persons than the number covered under the policy. It was further contended that the driver had no valid licence and that the alleged overloading amounts to violation of the policy conditions. Hence, the Insurance Company contended that it was not liable to indemnify the insured.

2.3. Before the Tribunal, on the file of the claimant P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and Exs.P1 to P12 were marked. On the side of the Insurance Company,

R.W.1 was examined and Exs.R1 to R11 were marked. No other witness was examined on behalf of the respondents.

3. Findings of the Tribunal:

3.1. Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal found that the accident had occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the Maruti car and held that the claimant was entitled to compensation. The Tribunal ultimately awarded a sum of Rs.1,37,775/-: Sl.N o Heads Amounts

For Disability 43,750/-

For Ex.P.8 to Ex.P10 59,005/-

Medical Bills 25,000/-

Nutrition 10,000/- Total 1,37,775/-

3.2. Challenging the said award, the Insurance Company has filed the present appeal.

4. Submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance company:

4.1. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the policy covered only the permitted number of occupants, including the driver, whereas more persons had travelled in the vehicle. According to the learned counsel, already four or five claims had been filed in respect of the same accident and the total number of claimants had exceeded the number of persons covered under the policy. It was therefore contended that carrying excess passengers amounted to violation of the policy conditions and that the Insurance Company was not liable to satisfy the claim. It was further submitted that the said aspect had not been properly considered by the Tribunal.

5. Submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/claimant:

5.1. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the claimant submitted that the mere fact that more persons had travelled in the vehicle would not, by itself, exonerate the Insurance Company to completely avoid its liability towards the third- party claimant. Reliance was placed upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Anjana Shyam & Ors reported in 2007

(2) TN MAC 193 (SC) and Vimal Kanwar v. Kishore Dan, reported in (2013) 7 SCC

476. It was further submitted that only three claim petitions had been filed earlier and the present claim petition was the fourth claim petition and, therefore, the contention of the Insurance Company regarding the number of claims was factually incorrect.

6. This Court considered the submissions made on either side and perused the records.

7. The points for consideration are:

(i) Whether the contention of the Insurance Company that the number of persons travelling in the vehicle exceeded the number of persons covered under the policy has been established by acceptable evidence?

(ii) Whether the alleged overloading of passengers, in the facts of the present case, would absolve the Insurance Company of its liability towards the claimant?

8. Discussion and findings:

8.1. During the course of hearing, this Court directed the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company to furnish the particulars of all the claim petitions filed in respect of the accident in question. However, despite the opportunity granted, the Insurance Company was unable to furnish any material establishing that the number of claims exceeded the number of persons covered under the policy.

8.2. On a perusal of the records, it is seen that three claim petitions had been filed prior to the present claim petition and the present claim petition is the fourth one. Except for the bald assertion made on behalf of the Insurance Company, there is

no material on record to establish that claims had been filed by persons exceeding the number of occupants covered under the policy. In the absence of such evidence, the contention of the Insurance Company cannot be accepted.

8.3. The next contention relates to the alleged overloading of the vehicle. The issue as to whether the mere carrying of passengers in excess of the permitted seating capacity would, by itself, exonerate the Insurance Company to completely avoid its statutory liability towards third parties has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the claimant. The said principle has also been reiterated in subsequent decisions.

8.4. The Hon’ble Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court, in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Laxmi Narain Dhut reported in 2010 (10) TAC 398. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Anjana Shyam & Ors reported in 2007 (2) TNMAC 193 (SC) and in the case of Vimal Kanwar v. Kishore Dan, reported in (2013) 7 SCC 476 have considered the effect of carrying passengers in excess of the permitted capacity. The issue has also been considered by this Court in subsequent decisions.

8.5. In the light of the settled legal position, the mere allegation that the vehicle carried passengers in excess of the permitted capacity cannot, without anything more, be treated as a ground to completely disown the liability towards a third-party claimant. In the present case, there is also no satisfactory evidence that the

vehicle carried more number of persons in excess of permitted capacity to support the claim of Insurance Company to deny compensation.

8.6. It is also significant that the Insurance Company, despite being called upon to furnish the particulars of the claims arising out of the accident, was unable to produce the necessary material before this Court. Therefore, the submission that the number of claims had already exceeded the number of persons covered under the policy remains an unsupported assertion.

9. Conclusion:

9.1. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence available on record, has awarded a sum of Rs.1,37,775/- as compensation. No ground has been made out warranting interference with the said award. Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

10. Result:

10.1. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed.

10.2. The Judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.218 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal Sub Judge, Tenkasi dated 31.03.2011 is hereby confirmed.

10.3. The appellant-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire

award amount, together with accrued interest and costs, if not already deposited, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

10.4. On such deposit, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the amount in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected civil miscellaneous petitions are closed. 02-11-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No sbn To

1. The Principal Sub Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tenkasi.

2. The Section Officer, VR Section Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J. sbn C.M.A.(MD).No. 948 of 2018

02-11-2026