AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sanjay Yadav, J.—Heard.
This order shall govern final disposal of Miscellaneous Appeals No. 627/2009, 628/2009, 629/2009, 631/2009 and 632/2009.
These Appeals under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 at the instance of Insurance company are directed against common Award dated 16.10.2008 passed by the Claims Tribunal in claim case for compensation preferred by the victims of accident occurred on 16.07.2006 caused by Truck bearing registration No.CII/6348 which turned turtle due to rash and negligent driving by the driver.
The claims Tribunal on the basis of material evidence on record that the injuries sustained by the claimants was due to accident caused during operation of motor vehicle in question and having found that the vehicle was rashly and negligently driven by respondent No. 2 and owned by respondent No. 3. The offending vehicle, the Trial Court found, was insured with the Appellant herein, accordingly, indemnified the owner by holding the Insurance Company jointly liable to pay the compensation, by discarding the defence that there was breach of insurance policy and that the injured were not the employees of the truck owner.
Carrying the challenge further present Appeals have been preferred on the grounds that the Claims Tribunal has erred in holding that the victims were the employees and that the vehicle, a goods vehicle, was operated in contravention of statute as also the policy that the passengers (24 in number) were being carried. Reliance is placed on the decision in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Devireddy Konda Reddy and Others etc. etc. and Jogi Subbamma and Others etc. etc., and National Insurance Co.Ltd. vs. Prema Devi and ors.: (2008) 2 AIR SCW 2023 to bring home the submission that the gratuitous passengers traveling in the goods carriage are not entitled for compensation and the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation.
Respondents on their turn have defended the Award.
Considered the rival submissions and perused the record.
The issue which crops up for consideration is whether or not the Insurance Company can be held liable for compensation in given facts of the present case.
Claims Tribunal on the basis of pleadings and the counter claim framed 7 issues of which issues No. 5 and 6 are relevant in the context which are as under :
In paragraph 40 of the Award the claims Tribunal on the basis of Insurance Company''s own evidence recorded the finding that the driver was having valid licence to drive commercial vehicle. The Tribunal found :
Furthermore, while dwelling upon the defence that the passengers were carried, the Tribunal found from Ex.D/4, Insurance Policy that 5 workers were permitted to board the truck and the premium was charged and paid. Therefore, relying on the decision in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kendra Devi and Others, and National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Anjana Shyam and Others, , though held the Insurance Company liable but confined the liability to five injured and for rest the owner is held liable.
The claims Tribunal observed :
These findings are based on material evidence on record. In Kendra Devi (supra) and Anjana Shyam (supra) it is held :
"6. The only contention of the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company, is that inasmuch as the insurance policy was issued for paid driver and not for owner who also happened to drive the vehicle himself at the time of the accident. In support of his contention, learned counsel drew our attention to the Insurance Policy(Annexure P-3). Perusal of the Schedule of Premium mentioned in the Insurance Policy, shows that apart from liability to public risk, the owner has paid premium only for paid driver and/or conductor. By contending that in the case on hand, the deceased being the owner-cum-driver and without additional premium/coverage for owner-cum-driver, the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation for death of the deceased who was owner-cum-driver and not paid driver as mentioned in the Schedule of Premium. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellant heavily relied on Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which speaks about the statutory liabilities and a decision of this Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Meera Bai and Others, .
We have carefully considered the above provision as well the decision of this Court. Taking note of the peculiar fact that the claimants have lost their only breadwinner, we are not inclined to interfere with the concurrent orders of the Tribunal as well as the High Court. Consequently, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed."
No material evidence is brought on record to contradict the findings that persons aboard the vehicle were employees and since the premium was paid against five employees, the conclusion arrived at by the claims Tribunal holding the Insurance Company liable to compensate five injured employees cannot be faulted with.
No other grounds are raised.
There being no merit in the Appeals, they fail and are hereby dismissed. No costs.
Let a copy of this order be kept in the record of connected Miscellaneous Appeals.