Underage Driving | 'Innocent Lives Are Lost, Can't Give Stamp Of Approval': Madras High Court Declines Motor Accident Claim Of Minor
Madras High Court has recently refused to entertain a motor accident claim in which the claimant, a minor, was found driving the motorcycle involved in the accident.In a strongly worded judgment, Justice S. Kannamal noted that the claimant who was a minor boy at the time of accident cannot demand compensation from the insurance company when he himself is a tortfeasor.Though the bench agreed...
Madras High Court has recently refused to entertain a motor accident claim in which the claimant, a minor, was found driving the motorcycle involved in the accident.
In a strongly worded judgment, Justice S. Kannamal noted that the claimant who was a minor boy at the time of accident cannot demand compensation from the insurance company when he himself is a tortfeasor.
Though the bench agreed with the claimant's submission that Motor Vehicles Act is intended to be a 'benevolent legislation', it clarified that that in itself would not mean there is an ipso facto applicability in all the cases. In the light of clear insurance policy violation, the court noted that the insurance company is relieved from the responsibility of paying compensation. Therefore, the court upheld the order of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chennai that had rejected the claim in 2017.
"Though this Court sympathizes with the appellant for the injuries sustained by him, it will not be a ground for this Court to recognize or to give a stamp of approval for the act done by him in riding the two wheeler, while he was a minor. If the claim of the appellant is entertained, this Court is afraid that it would open the flood gate and those who have no right to drive the motor vehicle would approach this Court and would justify their act to be recognized resulting in docket explosion", the court underscored.
The claimant had sustained grievous injuries including multiple lacerations of liver, Fractures of humorous and head of fourth toe etc. The appellant claimed that he is entitled to compensation from the autorickshaw driver who drove in a rash and negligent manner as well as the insurance company. Moreover, two doctors assessed the claimant/ appellant and concluded that he suffers from 25% of Ortho disability and 40 % of dental disability post accident. As a result, he filed a claim petition for Rs.7 lakhs as compensation against the driver of the Auto Rickshaw and its Insurer.
The High Court also lamented about the increasing number of instances wherein underage drivers are putting the lives of their own and others at risk. By referring to the High Court judgment in Karnan v. State represented by Inspector of Police, Traffic Wing, Salem (2012), Justice S. Kannamal opined that traffic violations must be curbed with 'iron fists' to prevent future instances.
"....Innocent lives are being lost or impaired at young age, much to the chagrin of the law makers and the society as a whole. Instances are galore that teen-age boys indulge in bike racing without any impunity, with utter disregard to the safety of other road users. Therefore, it is high time that there should be an effective implementation of the Motor Vehicles Act to curb the menace of underage driving..", the court further observed.
Taking judicial notice of increased 'juvenile driving' in the state, the bench dismissed the civil miscellaneous application by underscoring that it cannot give recognition to the violation by entertaining the current appeal.
The facts of the case indicates that the accident occurred back in 2010 while the then minor claimant was driving a two wheeler. The appellant himself admitted that he was a minor at the time of accident. Noting the same, Justice S. Kannamal concluded that.
"....there is a clear bar and embargo for the appellant to drive the vehicle even before attaining the majority or in the absence of driving licence issued by the competent authority as has been enunciated under Section 4 of the Motor Vehicles Act."
During the hearing, apart from the primary reason that the appellant was a minor at the time of accident which automatically vitiates the policy conditions, the respondent counsels also contended that the sum claimed is 'exorbitant' and 'fanciful'.
As discussed above, the appellant argued that Section 163 A of Motor Vehicles Act which states that "notwithstanding anything contained in the Act or any other law for time being in force, the owner of the motor vehicle or the insurer shall be liable to pay compensation due to the accident arising out of the usage of the motor vehicle" is an indication of the intention behind the Act to be the saviour of motor accident victims.
Case Title: Irfan v. K.S Kumaran & Anr.
Case No: C.M.A.No.2184 of 2018
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 85