AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Since in these four appeals, common question of law and facts are involved, they have been heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.
These appeals have been filed against the four separate judgments and awards dated 07.04.2005 passed by the 1st Addl. District Judge-cum- Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in Compensation Case Nos. 05/1999, 07/1999, 04/1999 and 06/1999, respectively, awarding compensation to the claimants for the death of all the four deceased in one motor vehicle accident.
The Tribunal after coming to a finding that the deceased were gratuitous passengers in the vehicle held that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation and accordingly, liability was saddled with the appellant, the owner of the vehicle.
All the claim applications were filed by the legal representatives of the deceased for grant of compensation. According to the claimants, the deceased were traveling in a truck as labourers, which was loaded with stone-chips. The said truck turned turtle, as a result of which, all the deceased labourers were thrown away from the vehicle and sustained injuries. One of the deceased, Chhatu Singh came beneath the stone-chips and died on the spot. The respondent-owner (appellant herein) of the vehicle appeared in all the cases and took plea that the vehicle was duly insured with the respondent-Insurance Company covering the liability of the labourers and therefore, the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation amount.
The respondent-New India Insurance Company taking ornamental pleadings in the written statement admitted that the offending truck was insured with its company. But the owner of the vehicle has violated the policy-condition by allowing the truck driver to drive the vehicle without any valid driving licence.
On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the tribunal formulated number of issues and recorded its findings. On the issue of driving licence, the respondent -Insurance Company submitted a report of a Surveyor which was marked as Exhibit-A mentioning therein that there was no driving licence issued in favour of the driver, who was driving the vehicle at the relevant time. The Tribunal held that Exhibit ''A'' cannot be a conclusive evidence to show that the driver was not holding any driving licence. Moreover, neither the D.T.O was examined nor any reliable evidence was brought on record for the purpose of arriving at the conclusion that the driver was not holding a valid driving licence. The tribunal therefore held that there is no evidence to show that the owner of the truck allowed the driver willfully and knowingly to drive the vehicle without any valid driving licence. In other words, these issues have been decided against the respondent-Insurance Company. Admittedly, against the aforesaid findings, no appeal or cross objection has been filed by the respondent- Insurance Company.
On the issue of liability of the Insurance Company under the insurance policy, the tribunal took notice of the evidence adduced by the claimants'' witnesses, who have deposed that the deceased were engaged as labourers in the offending truck by the owner of the truck. However, the Tribunal proceeded on the assumption that even if the deceased were authorized labourers of the owner of the truck, there is no evidence to show that the owner had paid premium for the said authorized labourers. The Tribunal therefore, held that in absence of any premium paid for the labourers engaged by the owner of the vehicle, the Insurance Company cannot have any liability.
We first invited Mr. Alok Lal, counsel for the Insurance Company to make his submission, who very fairly submitted that the vehicle was insured with the respondent-Insurance Company. However, the learned Counsel assailed the finding recorded by the Tribunal on the issue of the driver holding a valid driving lincene. Learned Counsel submitted that the finding recorded by the tribunal on the issue of driving licence is erroneous and cannot be sustained in law. We are afraid such findings can be assailed by the respondent without filing any appeal or cross appeal under Order 41 Rule 22 C.P.C.
Mr. Alok Lal further submitted that even without filing appeal, the findings can be reversed by applying the provisions of Order 41 Rule 43 C.P.C inasmuch as the appellate court even in absence of any appeal can re-appreciate the entire evidences and the findings recorded by the Court. We are unable to accept the submission of the learned Counsel. We can take notice of the fact that the claim cases under the Motor Vehicles Act are to be decided in a summery proceedings and therefore, in absence of any pleading and evidence brought on record by the Insurance Company, the findings recorded by the Tribunal cannot be interfered with.
As stated above before the Claims Tribunal, the Insurance Company has admitted the insurance of the vehicle but only pleaded that there was violation of policy-condition. There is no pleadings that under the policy, the labourers/employees employed by the owner of a vehicle is not covered because of non payment of additional premium. From the lower court records, we find that the Xerox copy of the insurance policy was filed by the claimants- respondent Since the insurance of the vehicle was not disputed, the said policy ought to have been exhibited by the tribunal by waiving formal proof, for the reasons that the facts admitted, need not be proved. We have perused the insurance policy which is available in the lower court records. From the schedule of the policy, it is evidently clear that besides covering the liability to the public risk, additional premium of Rs. 90/- was paid for covering the risk of driver, cleaner and four labourers i.e. for six persons'' premium, which was recovered @ of Rs. 15/- per person, which was the premium payable at the relevant time.
We can, therefore, safely come to the conclusion that the labourers engaged by the owner of the vehicle, who are now deceased, were covered under the policy. The findings recorded by the Tribunal is, therefore, perverse in law and is based on mis-appreciation of evidence.
We, therefore, hold that the respondent-Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation so awarded by the Tribunal.
For the reasons aforesaid, all these appeals are allowed and the findings recorded by the tribunal with regard to liability is reversed and it is held that the compensation amount shall be paid by the respondent-Insurance Company.
However, we clarify that since only four labourers (Coolies) were covered under the policy by payment of additional premium, the other claim cases, involving same issue which might have been filed by the injured, will not, in any way take the benefit of the findings recorded by this Court.