Santosh Kumar Gupta vs Ritupal Yadav and Others

I.M. Quddusi, J.—This appeal has been filed by the Claimants against the impugned award dated 28.8.2008 passed by the II Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (F.T.C), Surajpur, Distt. Sarguja (C.G) in Claim Case No.60/2006 dismissing the claim petition of the Appellants who were claiming damages for the loss of clothe bales in transit by a hired Vehicle which fell into a canal from the culvert. The facts of the case as per the version of the claimants are that on 13.09.2003 after loading their cloth bales (bundles of clothes) in Vehicle bearing Regn. No. C.G. 15/0987, respondent no.1 Ritupal driving the said vehicle to reach their destiny, but on the way while crossing the Sutiya canal, Surajpur, due to floods in the canal, the vehicle which was being driven in rash and negligent manner became unbalanced and fell into the canal, as a result of which two persons died and the clothe- bales had drifted away in the canal. The claimants have filed claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the award of compensation of Rs. 1,45,000/- on various heads.

The question for determination before us is whether the claim petition of the appellants was maintainable at all; whether their goods can be termed as property of third party and whether there is collision between the two vehicles and claim is not against any other vehicle, but against the vehicle in which the goods were being carried. In this regard, it is necessary to peruse the provisions of Section 147 and 165 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which are reproduced as under:

Requirements of policies and limits of liability-- (1) In order to comply with the requirements of this Chapter, a policy of insurance must be a policy which--

(a) is issued by a person who is an authorized insurer; and

(b) insures the person or classes of persons specified in the policy to the extent specified in sub-section (2)--

(i) against any liability which may be incurred by him in respect of the death of or bodily [injury to any person, including owner of the goods or his authorized representative carried in the vehicle] or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place;

(ii) against the death of or bodily injury to any passenger of a public service vehicle caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place:

Provided that a policy shall not be required--

(i) to cover liability in respect of the death, arising out of and in the course of his employment, of the

A perusal of the above quoted provisions shows that in section 147 (1) (b) of the Act about requirement of policies and limits of liability it has been specifically mentioned that the policy of insurance must be a policy against any liability which may be incurred by him in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any person, including owner of the goods or his authorized representative carried in the vehicle or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place. Therefore, the insurance must be confined to the risk of death or bodily injury to any person including the owner of the goods loaded in the vehicle or his authorized representative, but nothing has been said about the goods loaded in the vehicle and with regard to damage. Any property of third party is a separate class which is not for the goods already loaded in the vehicle and the claim is arising out of the use of that very vehicle.

In section 165 also, the words "damages to any property of a third party" have been used. Therefore, the third party would be only where the claim is in respect of the other vehicle and not the same vehicle in which the goods are loaded. Therefore, in no case, the goods of the claimants/appellants can be termed as a property of third party and the claim petition was not maintainable at all.

However, we are of the view that the claim petition was rightly dismissed by the claims Tribunal but it should have been dismissed as not maintainable and not on merits. Hence, the findings given by the Tribunal are held nonest in the eye of law in a non-maintainable claim petition and accordingly, the employee of a person insured by the policy or in respect of bodily injury sustained by such an employee arising out of and in the course of his employment other than a liability arising under the Workmen''s Compensation Act 1923 (8 of 1923) in respect of the death of, or bodily injury to, any such employee--

(ii) to recover any contractual liability.

Explanation.-- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the death of or bodily injury to any person or damage to any property of a third party shall be deemed to have been caused by or to have arisen out of, the use of a vehicle in a public place notwithstanding that the person who is dead or injured or the property which is damaged was not in a public place at the time of the accident, if the act or omission which led to the accident occurred in a public place.

Claims Tribunals.-- (1) A State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute one or more Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals (hereinafter in this Chapter referred to as Claims Tribunal) for, such area as may be specified in the notification for the purpose of adjudicating upon claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving the death of, or bodily injury to, persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles, or damages to any property of a third party so arising, or both.

Explanation.-- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the expression ''claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving the death of or bodily injury to persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles" includes claims for compensation u/s 140 [and section 163A].

impugned award dated 28.8.2008 is modified to the above extent.

In view of the fact that the claim petition was not maintainable, it will be open for the claimants to approach appropriate forum under the law available to them for redressal of their grievance. In the result, this appeal stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations.