AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Since Both these appeals arises out of the same accident, they are taken up together and disposed of by this common judgment.
MACMA No.3411 of 2011 is directed against the order and decree dated 16-12-2004 passed in O.P.No.411 of 2000 by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (IV Additional District Judge) (FTC), Nizamabad, whereby and whereunder, compensation of Rs.18,000/- was granted by the Tribunal to the claimant.
MACMA No.2981 of 2005 is directed against the order and decree dated 24-06-2005 passed in O.P.No.889 of 2000 by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (III Additional District Judge, (FTC), Nizamabad, whereby and whereunder, compensation of Rs.20,000/- was granted by the Tribunal to the claimant.
The averments in the claim petitions go to show that on 8-5-1999, the claimants were travelling in a lorry bearing No.AP-25-T-1145 from Bodhan to Nizamabad, at about 4.30 p.m, when it reached at Arsapally Shivar, due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, it turned turtle, as a result of which, the claimants and others received injuries.
The appellant herein is the insurance company. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-Insurance Company contended that the driver of the offending vehicle is not having any valid driving licence and there are violations of the conditions of the policy and therefore, the appellant is not liable to pay the compensation.
The point for consideration is whether the appellant-Insurance Company is liable to pay the amount of compensation.
Evidently, the offending vehicle is a goods vehicle and it is alleged that about 40 persons were travelling in the lorry as members of a marriage party. There is nothing to show that as to what purpose and under what provision they can be treated as labourers as claimed by them. The vehicle was used for purpose other than for which it should be used. Therefore, when the persons were traveling in a goods vehicle they are gratuitous passengers and in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in New India Insurance Company Limited vs Asha Rani & others2003 ACJ-1, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation.
In view of the above circumstances, the appellant cannot be held liable to pay the compensation and the claimants have to proceed against the owner of the offending vehicle.
Accordingly, both these appeals are allowed.