Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Khudi Devi and Others

M. Srioivasan, C.J.—The Insurance Company has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal II, Kangra at Dharamshala. The main contention urged by the Petitioner''s that the injured were either gratuitous passengers or passengers carried for hire or reward in goods vehicle and, therefore, the Petitioner is not liable for payment of compensation even though the owner of the vehicle is found to be liable by the Tribunal Reliance is placed upon the statement contained in the reply filed by the owner of the vehicle before the Tribunal that the passengers were charged and they were carried for hire and reward by the Driver, of the 1st Respondent, without the knowledge of the owner, of the 2nd Respondent. It is not possible to accept the contention of the Petitioner as reliance is placed only on one part of the statement contained in the reply of the owner and not the other part. If any reliance is to be placed on the statement contained in the reply, the entire sentence must be taken together and considered.

As the scope of this petition before me is very limited, it is not necessary for me to discuss in detail the question urged before me. This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, as pointed out earlier. The only question, which I have to consider is whether the award of the Tribunal is liable to be interferred with on account of an error apparent or any illegality or material irregularity committed by the Tribunal while considering the issues, which arose for decision.

I find that the Tribunal has discussed the question on the basis of the decisions rendered by this Court earlier in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Bhajnoo and Another, and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Lachhmi Devi and Others, The Tribunal also made a reference to the judgment of the Special Bench of five Judges of the Gauhati High Court in The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satyanath Hazarika and Others, and that of the Puniab and Haryana High Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Usha Rani and Others, It is not necessary to refer to all those judgments in detail Suffice it to point out that the two judgments of this Court mentioned earlier are of Division Benches, in which the Court has expressed opinion that even if the passengers are carried for hire or reward in a goods vehicle, the Insurance Company cannot escape its liability when there is no evidence that the passengers were carried for hire and that they were carried without the authority of the owner or the Driver. The Court held that when there was no acceptable evidence that the owner gave specific instructions to the Driver not to carry any passenger, the Insurance Company would be liable Reliance is placed on earlier judgment of this Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sukha Devi and Others, . In such circumstances, I am not persuaded to hold that this case warrants interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as the Tribunal has been guided only by the judgments of this Court and the judgment of the otner Courts, referred to earlier.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that First Appeals from orders have been filed against similar awards passed by the same Trtbunal in cases arising out of the same accident. According to him, there were as many as 50 cases before the Tribunal and in some of them, the award was for amounts exceeding Rs. 10,000 and in such cases appeals have beep filed by the Insurance Company. The question in the appeal will have to be decided on the basis of the evidence in those cases. It is noted that evidence has been recorded in each case independently and award has been passed in each case separately The scope of appeal is entirely different and any decision in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India will not certainly curtail the power of the Appellate Court, when it deals with the First Appeal against order said to have been filed by the Petitioner herein I am not convinced that the Petitioner has made out a case for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This petition is dismissed.

C.M.P. No. 29 of 1997:

In view of the dismissal of the main petition, this application is also dismissed.