AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Anand Byrareddy, J.—Heard the Counsel for the appellant and the respondent.
The appellant is the insurer of the motor vehicle involved in a motor accident. It transpires that a person, while travelling in the insured vehicle as a owner, accompanying the goods had suffered injuries, as a result of the vehicle having met with an accident and had laid a claim for compensation before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The Tribunal having allowed the claim petition, the insurer is in appeal before this Court.
It is contended that the vehicle insured was a goods carrying Auto-rickshaw having a laden weight of less than 990 Kgs., and therefore, in terms of Rule 100 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Rules'' for brevity), it was not permitted to carry more than one person. Further, since the vehicle is not designed to carry a passenger, the question of the claimant accompanying the vehicle or the goods does not arise and therefore, in terms of Rule 100 of the Rules, there is no liability on the insurer to cover the risk of an unauthorised passenger, no matter if he was the owner of the goods accompanying the vehicle. And further that the policy of insurance does not undertake the liability of a passenger accompanying the goods in the vehicle. It is on these contentions that the appeal is grounded.
Per contra, the Counsel for the respondent would submit that there is no prohibition for the owner of the goods to accompany the goods carriage vehicle. The contention that the vehicle concerned was of a laden weight of less than 990 kgs., and therefore, could carry only the driver and not others is a contention that is not tenable. The Counsel would submit that from a reading of Rule 100 of the Rules, it cannot be discerned that it was not capable of carrying the owner of the goods and would point out that the Rule prohibits the carriage of a person other than the driver and that even if the laden weight of the vehicle was of less than 990kgs., it was permissible to carry one person. Since the claimant was accompanying the vehicle as the hirer, there was no infirmity in the claim having been allowed.
To appreciate these contentions, Rule 100 would require to be read. The same is extracted herein for ready reference.
Carriage of persons in goods vehicle. -(I) Subject to the provisions of this rule, no person shall be carried in a goods vehicles:
Provided that the owner or the hirer or a bona fide employee of the owner or the hirer of the vehicle carried free of charge or a police officer in uniform travelling on duty may be carried in a goods vehicle, the total number of persons so carried, -
(i) in light transport goods vehicle having registered laden weight less than 990 kgs. not more than one;
(ii) in any other light transport goods vehicle not more than tree; and
(iii) in any goods vehicle not more than seven:
Provided that the provisions of Sub-clauses (ii) and (iii) of the above proviso shall not be applicable to the vehicles plying on inter-state routes or the vehicles carrying goods from one city to another city.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-rule (i), but subject to the provisions of Sub-rules (4) and (5), a Regional Transport Authority may, by an order in writing permit that a large number of persons may be carried in the vehicle, on condition that no goods at all are carried, free of charge in connection with the work for which the vehicle is used, and that such other conditions as may be specified by the Regional Transport Authority are observed, and where the vehicle is required to be covered by a permit, the conditions of the permit.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-rules (1) and (2), but subject to the provisions of Sub-rules (4) and (5), -
(a) for the purpose of celebrations in connection with the Republic Day or Independence Day or any other public congregation, the Regional Transport Officer;
(b) for the purpose of enabling a Co-operative society or class of Co-operative societies owning or hiring a goods vehicle to carry its members under its authority in such goods vehicle when used for the purpose of carrying goods of the society in the ordinary course of its business, the Secretary of the Regional Transport Authority;
(c) where it considers expedient in public interest in respect of vehicles owned or hired by it, and in respect of other vehicles on such inescapable grounds of urgent nature to be specified in the order, the State Government may, by general or special order, permit goods vehicle to be used for the carriage of persons for the purposes aforesaid, and subject to such conditions, as may be specified in the order.
(4) No persons shall be carried in any goods vehicle,-
(a) unless an area of not less than 0.40 square metre of the floor of the vehicle is kept open for each person; and
(b) in such manner -
(i) that such person when carried on goods is otherwise in danger of falling from the vehicles;
(ii) that any part of his body, when he is in a sitting position is at a height exceeding three metres from the surface upon which the vehicle rests.
(5) The provisions of this rule shall not apply to motor vehicles registered u/s 60.
(6) No person other than an attendant or attendants required by Rule 226 shall be carried on a trailer which is a goods vehicle.
As is plain from the reading of the Rule, it refers to persons other than the driver. Hence, it is clear that one person could have been carried in the concerned vehicle. Hence, there is no infirmity in the claim having been allowed by the Tribunal. No case is made out. The appeal is dismissed
The amount in deposit is to be transferred to the Tribunal for the benefit of the claimant-respondent.