Worah and Company and Others vs Ramkishore Patel and Others

S.C. Pandey, J.—This appeal is directed against the award, dated 20.12.1995, passed by III Addl. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Satna, in Claim Case No. 68 of 1989.

The Claims Tribunal has granted an award of Rs. 40,000 with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum against the appellants. The appellant Nos. 1 and 2 are the owners of the truck No. CPS 7711 in question. The appellant No. 3 is the driver of the truck. The Claims Tribunal has not granted any award against the respondent No. 7, the New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

In this appeal, the learned Counsel for the appellants argued that the Claims Tribunal ought to have made the respondent No. 7 liable to pay the amount of award in question to the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 jointly and severally along with the appellants. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants is that it is established from the evidence on record that the deceased was not a gratuitous passenger in the sense he had paid fare to the conductor before boarding the truck along with 20-25 persons.

The learned Counsel for the respondent No. 7, however, argues that in view of Rule 111 of M.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1974 (henceforth ''the Rules'') the truck, which is a ''private carrier'' within the meaning of Section 2 (22) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, cannot carry passengers either without fare or with fare. Rule 111 (1) of the aforesaid Rules prohibits taking of passengers in a heavy goods vehicle. It is not in dispute that the goods vehicle in question was not used for carriage of police or was used as a stage carriage in which goods are being carried in addition to passengers. Therefore, the aforesaid rule applies.

The Rule 111 (1) of the Rules reads as under:

(111) Carriage of persons in goods vehicles. -- (1) Save in the cases of a vehicle which is being used for the carriage of police or a stage carriage in which goods are being carried in addition to passengers no person shall be carried in goods vehicle other than a bona fide employee of the owner or the hirer of the vehicle, or the owner or the hirer and except in accordance with this rule.

It is clear from the aforesaid rule that a goods vehicle is prohibited from carrying passengers either gratuitously or on payment of fare. The only passengers that are permitted to be carried in a goods vehicle are bona fide employee of the owner or the hirer of the vehicle or owner or hirer personally. The deceased was none of them. The policy of the respondent No. 7 is also in accordance with the Rules. It insures the risk of five coolies besides the conductor. Thus six passengers are covered. These coolies and conductor are non-fare paying passengers. In view of this matter, it cannot be legitimately argued by the appellants that the risk of fare paying passengers is also covered by the goods vehicle belonging to the appellants. The appellants could not have entered into a contract with the insurance company for carrying passengers in their goods vehicle because such contract is prohibited under the law and shall be deemed to be void u/s 23 of the Contract Act,

For the reasons aforesaid, it is held that the Claims Tribunal came to the right conclusion that the respondent No. 7 was not liable to pay any compensation to respondent Nos. 1 to 6 jointly and severally along with the appellants.

There is no force in this appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.