Supreme Court of Mauritius, 17 avril 2026, 2026 INT 88 – Luxmee Devi Jeewoonarain & oths v The New India Assurance Co Ltd

Luxmee Devi Jeewoonarain & oths v The New India Assurance Co Ltd

2026 INT 88

CN: 104/23 THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF MAURITIUS (CIVIL DIVISION) In the matter of:- 1. Luxmee Devi Jeewoonarain 2. Homitlall Jeewoonarain 3. Vimla Devi Jeewoonarain 4. Tohonee Ghoorun 5. Soojata Rughoobur 6. Diksha Rughoobur Plaintiffs v/s The New India Assurance Co Ltd Defendant JUDGMENT: 1. As per the Amended Proecipe, the Plaintiffs are praying for a judgment condemning and ordering the Defendant to pay to the Plaintiffs the sum of Rs276,700 made up as follows: (a) Total loss (less wreck) Rs245000 (b) Wreck Rs20000 (c) Loss of registration fees Rs11700

2. The Plaintiffs are also claiming interest as from the date of entry of the Plaint to the date of final payment and cost.

3. As per paragraph 4 of the Amended Plaint the accident occurred along Royal Road, 16 eme Mile, Lapeyre when the driver of the motor vehicle bearing registration mark 3788 JU 11 was dazzled by another vehicle coming from the opposite direction and went to the left and hit with a “borne” on the road.

4. In court, Plaintiff No 2 and Mr Kevin Dakoo testified that at the material time, the Plaintiff No 2 gave Mr Dakoo the motor vehicle in order for the latter to drop a family of Plaintiff No 2. The accident occurred when Mr Dakoo was returning.

5. Neither Plaintiff No 2 nor Mr Dakoo were cross-examined to the contrary such that this part of their testimony has remain unchallenged. Consequently, I can safely find that at the material time the motor vehicle was being used for personal use and not for fares.

6. The main defence of the Defendant is that the Plaintiffs have made a breach of the insurance policy since Mr Dakoo was not holder of a certificate in line with the Road Traffic (Control of Taxi Operations) Regulations 2011GN No. 212 of 2011.

7. The Insurance policy is the contract between the parties. The relevant clauses in the present case are clauses 5 and 6 which reads as follows:

“5. PERSONS OR CLASSES OF PERSONS ENTITLED TO DRIVE*

a) The Policy holder only b) Any other person who is driving on the policy holder’s order or with his permission Provided that the person driving is permitted in accordance with the licensing or other laws or regulations to drive the Motor Vehicle or has been so permitted and is not disqualified by order of a Court of Law or by reason of any enactment or regulation in that behalf from driving the Motor Vehicle.

6. LIMITATIONS TO USE*

(a) Use only as a Taxi Car (b) Use only for carriage of passengers in accordance with permit (Contract Carriage or Stage Carriage) issue meaning of Road Traffic Ordinance (c) Use only for social, domestic and pleasure purposes.”

8. From the above Clauses of the Insurance Policy, it is clear that the Plaintiffs were being covered for 3 things: (a) use as a taxi car, (b) use as a contract car, and (c) use for social, domestic and pleasure purposes.

9. It is also clear that in the present case the motor vehicle was used for social, domestic and pleasure purposes and not as a taxi or a contract car.

10. I have considered the submission of Defendant’s Counsel that a taxi is always a taxi and cannot be considered for social and domestic purposes. I find that this line of submission is untenable being given that Defendant has agreed in the policy for the motor vehicle to be used for social and domestic purposes.

11. Moreover, in the Road Traffic Act, the legislator has provided for the definition of a taxi as “being motor vehicles having a seating capacity for not more than 6 passengers and carrying passengers and their effects for hire or reward whether under a contract, express or implied, for the use of the vehicle as a whole or at separate fares” vide Section 2 and 75(1)(c) of the Road Traffic Act.

12. In the present case, there is no dispute that the voyage was not for hire or reward.

13. Having found that the motor vehicle was being used for social and domestic purposes, the next issue is who was entitled to drive the motor vehicle at the material time. Mr Dakoo was given permission to drive the vehicle from Plaintiff No 2 and also holds a valid driving licence for private car and taxi.

14. The only contention of the Defendant is that he was not hold er of a certificate for driving the motor vehicle under the Road Traffic (Control of Taxi Operations) Regulations 2011 GN No. 212 of 2011.

15. I have duly considered the Road Traffic (Control of Taxi Operations) Regulations 2011 GN No. 212 of 2011 and I find that this Regulation is in relation to the Control of Taxi Operations.

16. In light with the definition of taxi in the Road Traffic Act above and the finding that the present motor vehicle was used for social and domestic purpose and not for hire or reward, I find that the Road Traffic (Control of Taxi Operations) Regulations 2011 GN No. 212 of 2011 does not apply to the present case. Mr Dakoo was perfectly entitled to drive the motor vehicle under the rules and regulations for social and domestic purposes. I therefore find that there is no breach of policy on the part of the Plaintiffs but on behalf of the Defendant for failing to honour the insurance policy.

17. With regards to the determination of the Motor Vehicle Insurance Arbitration Committee in the case of Phoenix Insurance (Mauritius) Ltd v The New India Assurance Co Ltd filed by the Defendant’s Counsel, I find that firstly, the said determination is not binding on the present court and secondly, there is nothing in the determination to suggest that the vehicle in lite before the Committee was used for social and domestic purposes and not as a taxi for hire or fares whilst in the present case it is clear that the vehicle was not being used as a taxi.

18. I have considered the prayers sought by the Plaintiffs. With regards to the loss of registration fees, I find that no documents were produced as to how this amount has been calculated nor any receipt produced to show payment of such an amount. I therefore find that the sum of Rs11,700 for loss of registration fees has not been substantiated.

19. With regards to the amount of Rs245,000 for total loss and Rs20,000 for the wreck, the Plaintiff No 2 has produced a motor surveyor’s report from Mr Jean Francois Mareemoutou, the Surveyor of the Defendant. As per the report which is not being contested in Court, the pre-accident value of the motor vehicle was Rs245,000/- and the value of the wreck is Rs20,000/-.

20. As per the insurance policy the Plaintiffs should be put in the same positions as they were before the accident. The Plaintiffs are in possession of the wreck which is valued at Rs20,000. Therefore, they cannot claim the value of the wreck.

21. Consequently, the Plaintiffs are entitled to the sum of Rs225,000 being the value of the car before the accident less the value of the wreck which is in possession of the Plaintiffs.

Conclusion:

22. In light of the case of the above, I order the Defendant to pay to the Plaintiffs the sum of Rs225,000/- with interest from the date of entering the present Proecipe, i.e. 28 th of February 2023 up until final payment. With costs.

U. Rawat Neerooa Magistrate Intermediate Court Delivered this 17 th of April 2026