High CourtsSingle Bench(1999) 02 PAT CK 0005

Krishna Kumar Agrawal and Another vs Mostt. Komiya Devi and Others

Patna High Court · Decided on 17 February 1999 · Citation: (1999) 1 PLJR 870

HON’BLE JUDGES
Gurusharan Sharma, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
M.A. No. 109 of 1998

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 272 words

Gurusharan Sharma, J.—Heard the parties and with their consent this appeal is disposed of under Order, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2.

One Shatrughan Singh, a vegetable trader, on 7.5.1997 in a motor accident lost his life. He was travelling on a truck, bearing registration No. SEQ-4838. which was a goods carrier and not a public service vehicle. It was carrying stone chips. The ill-fated truck fell down in a-ditch.

3.

The tribunal found the accident occurred, as a result of rash and negligent driving. It was also found that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger on the truck. The vehicle under reference was being plied in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.

4.

Under a motor vehicles insurance policy issued by Insurance Company in conformity with Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''), the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation in respect of death or bodily injury of any person travelling in a goods carrier as passenger whether as a hirer or otherwise, unless under the insurance policy, there was an extra coverage in respect of a passenger like an owner or hirer travelling in the vehicle. In the present case, unless it was proved that there was any such extra coverage in the insurance policy in question, the Appellant Insurance Company at this stage on the ground of no fault liability was not liable to pay any interim compensation to the claimants.

5.

In my opinion, the Tribunal has rightly asked the owner of the vehicle to pay compensation. This appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.