THE HOl\|'BLE MR. JUSTECE::'€HIfiA_NfiNfi3§!JI:fifiL 5
' ~...AN|) -._
THE I-lON'BI.E MR. Jus1jeEA.N.vEn uéonALA eowon
Ilné-ulnnn :
Nati6fia.i_ Ire5;i'raficé' i..td.,
§-iuh_l.l Braimlj 'Office.
1*hrz5ju'h~.qts aegum office,
No--»..144',«.S'ubharam Complex,
!\!!.£."-.'=?r.$ar*;- .33-'-galcre-1.
R212; "z:r.v}its Administrative Officer
S1-i.'V!.<.K. Mamk.
" Appellant
(By Sri. B..C. Seetharama Rae, Adv.,)
Annual:
1 Sri. Shekhappa,
Aged about 24 years,
S/0 Shlvappa Chlgadolll,
R,/a Byahatti,
-Now r/at Saundattl,
Saundattl Taluk,
Belgaum District.
2. Smt. Meharunnlsa,
Major, W/'o Sayyadsab Dociawad,
Khandarl Manjli, Patll Galll," '
Yellapur, Hubli.
(owner cf the Truck. Lyearlrf' "
(R1 8: R2 Served)
This Appeai is ;_f|ied..und§r*=..ss.§ct!on 173(1) of MV Act
against the.judgme-ant_and..award.dated 2!11;.2_00.2 passed in
MVC Nq.23a4f-2000 prj',~'chVé~.."f!l_e' cafthe Member, AMACT,
Saufidafii, §?'a;'ir_r'ur*r.Vi'~',*r'. ';_aii0vfing" "'th'e ciaim patiticn for
compensa_tloi:".*I;_ '
cn%oB5rizizéanjjabaa .
Sfir S-i'z.a;=2i<r1ar:_'a,*._ "
gs/Q Shlvappa'Chl'gado||i,
"eAg_ed about"'24...yaars,
_ Rf-ai' Byahattl,
" -V . Nowvrfat' saundatti,
Samzdatté.,Ta!u.'_.!".i 't§'_ie f'i_!e of the civil Judge
(sr,Dn=) 5; Memberv,V-A!*d.ACT,'ieSundefiéi, partiy aiiewing the
claim petltieii for é:ompei1seti'o'ii~ahdfseeking enhancement of
camperieatiegezi; .
In.ivHFA'v.V.53r5.§f;f206$'- "
Nati6ir3a"l iInsu_re'ii¢eV_'(:o_,} Ltd.,
iii ew Cot-tori i'viejri<et, ' « ~~
Huhii Bram:_h." "
_ " 'i~1€'hroug%he..i%ts Regiéiiai orrice,
--.No--i144;«vi.SLibharam Complex,
2 NI ':!n2rI"~_ D.~nnna.lA|-e=1-
.-I'u.luv.-I, .I,rJ'GlIyI'illUl
X '~-.__Rep; fi'tS Administrative Cfficer
AA '*-(iByNSri. seethereme Ree, .I-\.r_h.:.,)
smt. D. Karthika.
- " Appellant
' Ana.
1. Kurnari 'fashoda,
Aged about 12 years,
Being minor rep. by her father 8:
Nature! guardian
Jagadl Yeliappa Shamarayanavara,
' I:
We Katti Oni, Saundatti,
Belgaum District.
2. Smt. Main.-nnise,
W/o Sayyecl Sat: Daciwacl,
Aged abnut «10 years, j; 4'
R/o Khadrl Manjii, Patll Galili, '
Yellapur Road, Hubll.; _
(Owner of the Truck) "
(By Sri. G.R. csuruijiath,i'Adlyt;,nlrq&gl'gR1) ' '
Thls4A'p.peali"is'i"il~ed_'u.n»derA-Section 173(1) of MV Act
against the judgment a'nd"award..cl.ated 20.4.2005 passed in
MVC No.i72.'3_/2001'.pi:--,the file of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) &
Adcil. 3' S.4..='-"-.1ijec'.atti; l"»;.=.*war ng cornpenset n of
Rs,..1.,3_5;£lO'0}'--~:;:._with"futu're..,ln_terest at 8% p.a. and directing
title appellant i'i_eI'ein«.t'o deposit the same.
Mm.ile;e';g:'ele;s7t.nv i
din
'elte.l'NatA:tona_I Insurance co., Ltd.,
V .. _ Hubll Sr'a~--n_Ci'u ('Jffice-.
. "'l.--._ViThi*gfi'gg.h'V~ltsV..ReglonaI Office,
A Nei1.4¢i~,._. Subherem Complex,
M.€_.R0'ad, Bangalore-1.
A g_ Reg: by its Administrative Officer
x _' K.K. Maliik.
Appellant
(By Sri. B.C. Seetharama Rao, Aclv.,) '
And;
1. Sri. Chldambar,
Aged about 27years,
S/o Gangappa Horakerl,
LI!
2. Sr}. Bhlmappa, Major,
S/o Garnappa Horakeri,
Both are r/a Pattadakal Onl, _~
R/at Saundatti, Belgeum District; "
3. Srrat. Meharurmrsa, _
Major, W/0 Syed Sab' Deqawad, .
Khandari ivianjii, Patli G'a]II,» "
Yellapur, Hubli.__
Respondents
In" 9...: I .--u-----.--.. -1- Im¢--,,..:..;,_.;.~,-:~.b A ---- ---- --
uay :.m. |..d.KH~}¢lll I :E°ldI'iI_flvQilI1l', GV_.,.V or H1 19. K4, K5 served)
l'sir'j'.-fired v1':j'ufir1er'SectIon 173(1) of MV Act
against the judgrnent"an:l____awé§rd dated 2.11.2002 passed in
M§iC%"'r'i4e.,.?,35!?-'.3{!I:.*'gee-rs the""fl!e of the Member, AMACT,
Sa--.undatt§,"7',~«pvé'rt§y«-._ "aliewing the claim petition for
car :pensatiom u
(in time 1%2'r3;eso3
1. "'a".;'"%*:.i;:ia'Vrf'r's'::a"izr,
S/ceificingappa Horakeri,
..__A'g'e:" 28 years, Occ: Agriculture,
" .. R10. Saundatti, Pattadakell -- om,
saundattu Taluk,Be|gaum Dlstrlct.
V' Bhlrnappa,
S/'0 Gangappa Horakeri,
Age: 24 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o Saundattl, Pattadakall -- Onl,
Saundett! Telulgaelgeem Lrlstrlct.
(By Sri. Laxman T Mantaganl, Adv.,)
(ZN
Audi
1. National Insurance Co., Ltd.,
Hubii Branch offlce.
Through its Regional Office, .. .
No.144, Subharam Complex,
M.G.Road, Bengatoreel. .. " '
Represented by its D¥vl's.I_onaI Manatger,
3. Smt. Mahlrunisa,
Major, Occ: Truck owner," _' V
R/o Khandarl M'a.njll_, ;?at§j_i' §§a;'é!!j,.~
Yellapur, Hubil. * .
Respondents
(By SrE'.'B.C. for R1)
This v<:rose.,ob3.e'ctl_on is filed under Order 41 Rule 22 of
CFC: egeénst~.,theo»..3ue:';,gment and award dated 2.11.2602
passed In MVt:fNo;'235/2000 onthe file of the Member,
An'viACT,-,,Svaundatti,*.partiy aiiowlng the claim petition for
e;orn,pensation' andseeklng enhancement of compensation.
4i\iatVio.nalfi Insurance Co._, Ltd._.
_ _ Hubuolvisuon.
V frnrough Its Regional office,
No.14-'e, Subhararn Cornpiex,
M.G.Road, Bangalore-1.
Rep. by its Administrative Officer
Sr}. K.K. Mamk.
Anoeiiant
(By Srl. B.C. Seetharama Rao, Adv.,)
And:
1. Smt. Basawwa, Major,
'N/o Fakérappa Jawfier,
R/o Ayatti, Navaiagun Taiu§a:,""' .
Dharward District. ~
2. Smt. Mairunnissa, _ ._
Major, W,/e Seyyedseb«,.Drsr£a'*'edw
R/o Patii Galii, V'
'feiiapur, _
Taiuk: Hubii, Di.-.;t';~: D'ruai';*.'ad~..__'».,,
Respendente
(By Sri. Lexrrjan T
Ti1is«ii_Appeai'is'f'iied""und;er Section 173(1) of MV Act
age!--nst_the J{:'d_gm'eni'._and"-award dated 2.11.2002 passed In
MVC N_6;1"-§.0§j'?2OGQ"'~«9_n _t_he file of the Member, AMACT,
Saundatti, 'p-arrtiyv "»___ai!owim_;_I the claim petition for
compensation.'
7313x2304
'n...da.-........;..,
_ d~rirrsiétr:¢5'r:ai insurance co., Ltd.,
A V i~iew_Cotto"n Market, Hubii Branch.
Threcagh its Regienei Office,
.. No.'144, Subhararn Complex,
'M. --.Road, Bangaiore-1.
Rep. by its Administrative Officer
Smt. D. Karthlka.
Appeiiant
(Bv Sri B C se_tha.rema Ree, Ad\.I.,}
l..__l=
1. smt. Shantawwa,
Age: 42 years,
W/o Basappa Kambar,
2. Srl. Manjunatha Basappa Keh3b«ar, ]
Aged about 25 years, be? '
Both are r/o Ammlnabhavh, _
Teluk: Dharwed, Diet: Dherwed.
3. Srr1t.Armepurn~a,
Aged about 24--.yeu~3rs,_
W/o Hanamanthappa 'TyapI,__ "
R/a Yadravl, .. = V ' " "
Taluk:_ Sieu.nda'tti, _:D_I:et.::VBeig_aum.
4. Ab§J'ui""E».a§seh!i_f_,_ .Vp1'a.j'r_)i.'.;". "
S/o..Da..veiVsab Mruigvundy 3
Qrlvtecg' r/oI;Java.!|g--a||I, Gedag.
5. E5-m't,Ma!runh--:sa";A.._ "
M339.-', ..W','c._ $3-fled sat': Dcadawad,
' ~ R/a Ke,dr'i~Manzi|, Patil Galll,
'v'aiiapur"--Ro_e_d, Hubii, Dist; Dharwad.
V E»*A"(0wn'er of the Truck bearing No.MEw-7045)
H '- Kirtiagaraj for R5, R2 served)
" This Appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act
" 'tgagainst the judgment and award dated 3.7.2004 passed in
MVC No.265/2000 on the file of the Clvil Judge (Sr.Dn.) 81
Member, AMAIJ, Seundetti, pert" allowed with cost.
Awarding compensation of Rs.3,23,'013'0/- with Interest at 6%
pa.
.
-Ir
“{By,.._’S’ri-.0§€5A.R. Gurumath, Adv., for R1)
‘:13
National Insurance Co._, Ltd._,
New Cotton Market, Hubil Bran_r:h.__
Through its Regional Office,
i\io.144, Subhararn Comfiiex,
M.G.Road, Bangalore-1.’
Rep. by its AdministrativeV_Qi’iicer’VV
Smt. D. Karthika. . Vt V
(By sn. B.C. Seethararne nag, Adu”.
1. Sri. iYéIi.apt5’é’ 3’Rarn*af’ps5av..SA:no:i{1aVreyeonevarei
Ag_ed”‘~ab’ou:t..65 years,” ‘
em; Katti 0§é’i;’Sa’d.{io’atti_,”””V
r.__Be_iga un1.to0:tAstriTctttk ‘ ._ ‘
2. sm; Mairunni.se:..,’:””‘–
_ W/o”‘5a’yyed Sab ‘Badwad,
” Aged about 40 ‘-years,
ER/c.._i(hacii*i’ ‘a’~*.–s«n’ziI, Patli Galii,
WI * 1.: ml
“u Rfiad, HUMII.
0′ ‘ _ ‘*(.(_.’)w’nwe_r of the Truck)
Respondents
This App-eai is fiieci under Section 173(1) of I’vi’v’ Act
sigainst the judgment and award dated 20.4.2005 passed in
I’v’I’v’C No.17?-V2001 on the flie of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) &
AMACT, Saundatti, awarding compensation of Rs.3_,85_.000,/-
with future interest at 8% p.a. and directing the appellant
herein to deposit the same.
10
In MFA 5356/20!) 5-‘
Esiwa-ma
National Insurance Co., Ltd.,
New Cotton Market, Hubli Branch.
Through its Reg onal Office,
No.1-44, Subharam Complex, ”
iV’I.G.Road, Bangalore-1.’; ._
Rep. by I 5 Administrative ‘Officer
t. . _ _ Appellant
(33; Sri. B.C. Se-thai’ar”na’~Ra~o,; Adm)
Aged at:-‘mt 53 yeah}. ‘ .
_W[o_ Baéavanptappa__Hosakerl;
2.:*Sril Anna~pp.a,’~Ma3.or;.. ‘ t
3/0 BasevVan.tapp–aA_ Hoea kerl,
Both are r/do wNarei’adfa’,
, .’_;¥’aluol<. 8-. Dlst..Dhan~vad.
A 3. _Smt–,4vA'iv?.ehrunnisa,
" T. _'Major,»a.V\g'!o sayyed sab Dadwad,
'«,/'o.Kh;a'drI Manzll, Patll Galll,
Yellagzur Road, Hubll,
{Owner of the Truck)
" 'I. Respondenta
. _ decay Sri. jacigisn Ptii, Adv., for R1 a R2)
This Appeal Is flied under sectlon 1173(1) of .-.V Act
against the judgment and award dated 20.4.2005 passed in
l'-WC No.1394/2006 on the file of the Civil Judge (S"."n.) 8:.
F
AMACT, Saundatti, awarding compensation of Rs.2,41,000/-
('MN
11
with future Interest at 6°./; p,a_, and directing V.t1ne’i~appe!!ant
herein to deposit the same. ” ‘ ”
In MFA 5358/2005
figtflm
National Insurance Co., £;tcL,
Iu_… .1–.u.__ lhI__._I.-_I. I,I..I_l:’.1’J_’n’…-,|.
IVBW K…-ULI.Ull IVIGIKEL, FIUUII Dplfilblkli.
Through its RegIon:’ai_OfFI¢:é,” =
No.144, Subharam*~«.C)omp_le):_,V, ” ‘
M.G.Road, Bangalore-.1’. ” ”
Rep. by itsindmlniistratlye Qffifcer ‘
Srfit. D’._Vi€.ar”t§*1’aii’i<a..V ' __
Appellant
(By Sri .–..B'.C.:jSeef:harama 'Rao,f.Adv.,.)
An_£li__
1. Sri. ‘Naganago*Lud’a«.,p ”
Aged about years,
‘ ~ S/o Giriyap’pag’ouda Baianagouder,
:BfaVv%Shiru’i;… _____
“Ta|u3<.;_ Navalagund, DIst.: Dharwad.
.- -iS':-..!_." €9[.is,,i~'Dod»*ead, Major,
R/'o'tj;Pai:ii Galli, Ye iapur ni,
-_ ,Hubfl.
,. “(owner of truck)
Respondents
N = . Kay Srl. H.M. Dharlgond, Adv., for R1)
This Appeai is fiieci under Section 173(1) of iviv Act
against the judgment and award dated 19.3.2005 passed in
MVC No.1239/2000 on the me of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) &
Rs 3,2
AMACT, Saundatti, awarding compensation of . ,3?5,/-
wlth future interest at 8% r:».a. and direc:im_”tn_’e.eppeiiant
herein to deposit the same.
These eppeele eh. ‘ebj’e.tleh_e’*.h.ayll)gvi’ been
reserved, VENUGOPALA GQWTDA, $5,, ” _deiive’red-,. th
f’iiowifig: ‘
J U otfftzrvieaitfl 1%
Claim’.pftitiohe’–were
on travelling along with
vHubii in Truck bearing No.
the truck drove the vehicle in high
speedand inV.n’egiige’h:t”rhanner and while overtaking another
_’ye’i~.l.<.:ie, vehicle to a stone wall of the bridge on the
-1″.
.!gh’t of the reed, accident teok place, reeultlhg in the
‘ bodvil’y._’rijgirlvevfatai ‘”u’uriee. Cornpenea”oh was claimed on
A “-4._acc.o’un.t§*of the bodily injuries/fatal Injuries.
The claim petitions were resisted by the appellant —
Insurance Co. by filing statement of objections, denying the
allegations made in the petition w h regard :9 thg gaiasg cf
injured/deceased persons were unauthorised_¢.perse.ns in th
fl)
vehicle, that though there was a policy..i§ssuedj~eyf–it}ther
was vioiation of terms and conditions.o’f”theVv insurance “poii’cy
by the driver and owner of the :fJe’hic’i’e._a-nd’- h’e’n-ce;A::iatA is n’ot«:
liable to pay the cornpen’setion.V” Ari” appiric’at.ijo.n_:V\Na.’s by it
under Sec. 170 of the’vi’Ar;t,,_seeki’n.p_:fperimission of the
Tribunal, which wes”jai_iowee,.1e’n.d»theeppeilant/insurance Co.
was permitted to eii the grounds, if
the owner V-h.e’~.vehicie_ faii’-sto”‘ contest; Owner of the
5″
vehicie..hashot ucocniesctzedj the gem petitions.
3. A”__8aysed.._.’o–hA’–itéh—e’:p”‘pieadings, issues were framed and
genquiry’wvas”.°hei’d which the claimants/petitioners have
deposed, apartwfrom examining witnesses. The appeiiant –
– Ihs=’«te”hce_.t:o. hes examined or-e o
I’h’1′ f’\-FFI
I I Ina \.r
A tne copy of the Insurance poiicy. Eonsidering the
T record, relying upon the decisions of the Apex Court in the
it jfcase of NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. vs. SATPAL SINGH
reported in 2001(SC) 227 and RAMESH KUMAR vs.
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., reported in ILR 2002 Kar.
870, the Tribunal has eccepted the claim petitions -and the
la
‘ar
concerned vehlsle being a goods vehicie, it5-‘rotil~fij’*r_oit’.have to
incur any liability in respect of the passengers'”tra’nVsportedin
the vehicle, has been rejected. uoornp’en’set’:so«n~sAzpayabisA
has been assessed and sep.arate”e,_viiards rIna%2e.beerl passed.
4. Being aggrieifed, 1’the_Vlinsurraru;e Co. has filed these
appeals. Since common g.ue_sti’o’n Vow-e’cts and law arise .or
conslders_tl9ni,t»r’ t..e:’–act:_lo”ent’ heing”cornrnoh, the appeals were
heard lsnaftaie .bei’ngv’V:tiiVsposed off by this Judgment.
For ifse’ite_pVV_ofV’%convenlenee, the parties will be referred to
with reference’ in the claim petitions before the
Trlbpnalil
5 Sr! IE.-‘C.See.harame “as, learned Counsel appearing
A -..or the”appeliartiihsurance Co., contended that the Tribunal
haspeommitted error of law and facts in making the insurer
v .._”iAl..abIe to satisfy the awards made in respect of passengers in
the goods vehicle, by relying upon the decisions in the case
of NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. vs. SATPAL SINGH, reported
In 2001 SCC 23? and RAMESH KLJMAR. Vsl NATIONAL
‘\
ll
/
.-
msumwcs co. LTD, reported in mi 2002 :-(‘age-%;f’nn8rgj7’*oa, whlch
are not good law In vlew of the Iarger Be4n:chVAdf’_the
Hon’ble Supreme Court, ivn~st.h.e
ASSURANCE co. LTD. vs. ASHARANI, tropes-tteo ~é%n~«ArR_2oo3
SC 607; He further contended that,’the.:u’eh’I’ciVe question
wh!c.h. had already.beenV_!eadsd”–~w!th.actions (200 be
Cement covered were 26 passengers
who were4r;t’ra..VeI|:;’A;’i’9§”[‘hi t.he.’i\ve.g51;.rr1e:..rV’rrehlcle, who had not
engaged ‘:l:o_r_r;4.’fo.r i;ran_sgo’rtIng vegetabres, etc. He
cont.end”ed” that_ «’.the.}owner of the goods or his
auathorlsedu’r’egreseneta’tIve; none else is covered under the
A _ ‘r.een.d.ivsmi__ssed against the insurer on the ground that unless
‘f__tAhVé :’g_oodVs”‘VuehIcie was engaged by a person for transporting
“””hIs«V:godds from one destlnatlon to another, the risk of such
V * ovrner or his authorised representative is not covered under
“the Act. Merely because passengers have boarded the goods
IC
ID
E
1
D
P.
3
3
II3
§.
I’!-
5
1′!’
5
is
‘S
I7
Ii!
ll}
I’ll!
ID
ID
ID
2
II
3
<
('P
3'
(D
-<
['3
II?
3
3
(3
(“P
13′
(D
u… A . A 4 . . ….4……. .5′ .. ..
1…… A _ _ LL… ..–.I.._ .1.
LEITIIEU 63 owners 01 Ule QUUUS Er
Q}!
<
EL
:1?
(D2
5:’
HI-
If
mr
€’ Dyerrnittted Vaajaownewre ‘or
the goods and none of the persons’ J
petitions, ciaimed to be –t_h’eV_%owner__of_20_0″~.i§a’gs “of cement,
w’r’ch was heirg,tranapoflad”‘–~.from factory. He
[-1
contended that the’ to consider EXS. F.
and 9.2, yadrnittegzdwtV’i’n:;eyidence;- that the petitioners
and contend that, the
covntenyte~wtheaaof ‘oee_n} proved. He placed reliance on
the deciveivonfjojf Court in the case of ORIENTAL
1iisuoaAncE’co.y vs. PREMLATA Si-iLJ.K.LA. AND omens,
»»’-:.:re:|;forted (3) T.A.C. 11 {s.c.) contended that, the
Exs. 53.1 and P.2 relied upon by the parties shouid
ioioi<e.d"Vinto in fuii and not on a part of it, as has been
the Tribunal, whiie passing the impugned judgments
V A' awards. He contended that the findings of the Tribunal
it are perverse and consequentiy, the awards impugned in
these appeaia passed again.-at t..e appellant as iiabie to be set
aside. is
/
Kt
Jagadish Patii, Malilkarjun andmothers,""cvontended_ that;,the
petitioners have established t.hat;fth.e itnjurad/deceased' were–:
travelling in the vehicles-n_ S-V1'-2601 w<nen;.theWaccident» has
occurred, to be the owners_l:'of:the_ goodsl_i:ivl<e potatoes, onions
and other itemsgwalridt conjseduen.ti*_y,_ the Insurance Co. is
Counsel l?;ont§t}en.ded.th-salt. the depositions of the petitioners
and other—-witnesses'-exarninedVin the Tribunal, it has been
es_tabil.shed,Vt.h_ati the""i-njured/deceased were transporting food
grain.gbargs/vegjetatiies; 'etc. in the offended lorry, at the time
gger agccidentand thatzthey were travelling with their respective
go'o:ds_V"ehd therefore, they could not he termed as gracious
.e-rs'. Learned Cdunsel cont
wejs'j-dstified in relying upon the decisions of the Apex Court
.. iznvvthe cases of SATPAL SINGH and RAMESH KUMAR (supra).
.f"Learned Counsel, also contended that the appellant has
satisfied the award passed in MVC No.2278/2000 dt. 15-2-
2002, arising out of the same accident in which the Tribunal
had fixed the iiebii..y on t..e eppeiient herein end hence, it is
.'/,.
,,ia,riiI.;r-aalsici’-ass obiections, flied by the p
Learned Counsel contended that In view of4″satI’si’§Irjr:§,i said
award, the appellant is estopp.ed__4frorn'”a’ye’idi’n’g,’_iiabi,iVity,,
respect of the awards passed by the in”f:aovo’Uvrjof the ”
petitioners. Learned’ ‘fitounisei conten;_’ived,,. that ‘the
appeais,/cross objections_…:VVri»i.edVw.,_, “the, ‘petitioners for
s. . –
Tribunai has’faiied,t’o”q–:iant’iry-.theVmfrspiensation properiy an
pass the Learned Counsel made
award, in so far as
fhd;-.g._the;’i*%st>i:Iii’ty,’on:’:i:he appellant and directing it to satisfy
theiiawlardvs submissions for allowing of the
titioners.
u ; u J
:””‘_~(_:_on:sidering the rival contentions as above and the
“‘=rec.ordv’rnaintained by the Tribunal, the question that arises
.. ,__for”’eonsideration in this batch of appeals is, “whether the
V'”~”i’ribunai was Justified in fastening the iiabiiity on the
appellant to satisfy the awards, and whether the
appeaislcross objections flied by the ,o..titioners have any
\\
CD
-I
5′
record of the Tribunal arehithet, oa1″h’5e§1§2eoQ,e¥
vehicle/truck bearing No. ‘en ‘:
accident at about 5.00 p.’%n«.,__onV’sai:ndat:§;t)eif_u%§~.fyyaid m, It
was carrying about’10 tone’_F:(“i”,C)O«.,l;§ag;’e) efeerhent, which was
covered with a tarpeflilh é4nc%j1the*re-hvfirere 20 persons travelling
iater 6 ‘efrhheérjjvv’heve””succumbed ‘to the fatal
InJuriee.., ,:}h!%§§g|hgu.:V§:fg’d v’::he’gllgent drlvlng of the said
vehvlcle’.A jezzlalm petitions were flied In the
MA¢’r.._a’t sau5aa:;:b.hamber petltlon In the MACT at Dharwad
‘end _onexrnvofe”‘pefitJe’h before the Workmen’s Compensation
HuLn!L The pertlcmere of the claim
in MACT, Saundatti, and the cor’resr:cma’ing
A “-««arJl3§’aESA«1’~”ere as foiiows :
M \.:.c. Me M.F.A.Nc.
Mo.
1. 235/2000 914/2003
2. 234/2000 913/2003
3. 1406/2000 994,/2003
4. 255/2000 7818/2004
5. 1239/2990 5355/2995
6. 1394/2000 5356/2005
u.
%
1,724,/2091 555-t,r2oo5
‘7.
3. 1723/2001 5355/2oo5,,to,sV,, u
9. 2231,-‘2GOG Award rt-ot seti,%5fiee._,_ ‘
10. 2230/2000 petition’*.disrnisSedt’Q ‘
11. 2278/’2000 Awe’rd’setisfied’-ig ”
12. 144/2000 “?q5/zoos
13. WCA.No.50/2006 ~ r
The claim flied before WCC 1-!tt__b’!’i,,.
9. Tribunai accepting.et’h’e:*.ees§=.g_f theipetitioners has held
that the, injurea/dieteaserd,’V:inre |§§§A,,,yat’ the said accident,
were traveiiing_-witijhiithiéiti 9oo’d’s_w~inv:’th§evv’vvehicie as the owers of
the goods;_”~.aiti’-“the: er;Aci.dent and consequently has
aliowedtise c:i:eim”‘petition’s-by} appiying the principle of res
records*–4suchflasaE:§,’F«.,.’i’ — FIR, Ex.P.2 and spot mahazar of the
ha”ve…been taken into consideration. Considering
‘ –the…oraVi«v..evi.dence that, the injured/dead were travelling with
H ” :fl”the.ivr transporting food grains/vegetabies, it has held
iuthavtlthe injuredldead were transporting their goods in the
5’
-s
‘1
‘-<
I3'
'–<
1::
:11
”-<
3
U:
D
3′
in
.5
In
In
0
-n
1-1-
3′
{D
ID
D
O
11
in
H-
O
I”‘I’
3′
ID
:3.
1
<
ID
-t
O
-n
1-!’
1′!
ll}
I-A Lines in.’ I-Inn ‘P A A n n u n 1.5553: (“A I-I.-.nL LL.
LUIILSUI UI LIIU 1lIhL«||flIILU LU. LHGL LII
fli-
persons who were traveiiing were not the owner or
authorised representative of the goods, has not been
accepted and the decisions cited before it.
I
\/
qt”-r’
1o. P.W.1 In MVC No.235/2000 has dep_osed..’th_at. the
second petitioner, that on 5-1-2999, Ga’i’a–gao;:_.s
iviayaopa Horakeri was transjoorti.n§ jj+;Ioods_’in”tru:;i<« iv1E.'Wj
7045 from Saundatti Vt9._Hut5ii,_v_"when iiiorrykwas
moving at a distance of from 'Savdndetti, It met with
an accident at p.:i'Vi'Ii4.__(Z'i.tiE«.i,'O theirash and negiigent
driving by its driver__v:in_VVtr§(iriVg *:o.vV.ofife;vrtake another lorry and
in dashing'ito?"the"–.sidea'§ué1'rd"stone, Including his father, 9
persons died in the said aeaide-it and some of the other
inn1ates'~Stivsta§'§ned¢i'njiiries..'HEX. e.1 is complaint – F-'IR, Ex.P.2
_ §pot=parn9h'aAn'erna.;"Ex';P.3 — post rnortem examination and
_F)<.P.4i"– '.'–rep'ort';: In the offended truck, his father was
-fr’utra.n.spvo.rtindV’3″”b’ags of onion and 2 bags of potato, each
A ” t’we;«;iti1s§ig.[5_o kgs. to Hubii for saie. He had ioadeci the said
Vg9o.es’3snd has paid charges of Rs.50f–. 19 t
aauon, he has dejoosed that, his f’t’ner was going to
V. _wjHubii for sale of vegetabies, he received information after 10-
15 minutes of the accident, his father boarded at
Government Hospital cross, which is at a distance of 11/2
kms. from his house. There were about 10 to 15 inmates in
i
‘x
Z
und. It was shandy He
has denied the suggestion-…..t_h4at fh’ig4~–1i’f3rher’_:sAVwaspniot
transporting vegetables in the track :”tt–h.att.iexce’pt”
cement bags, no other ifiateriaiiiwas carré.ed”‘:§}’i«v–the3 saidtruck.
He has denied the suggestion__that no potato and
onion goods be!ng’–..rJ.arar!’ed airrflak and that, his father
was an persons died at the
spot sustained injuries. The
dea_d’Vhorqyfi, the lorry under the cement
it-iiejVEr:a«s_F’dehted-…t_ha suggestion that the lorry was fully
Ioadediwith”cerrieh’t””‘aag.s and that there was no other goods
‘being ioadedvlin the said truck. Onions and potatoes were
not hé
‘:3
15
-:
:3
S1?
5:}.
ID
l’I’
Fr
.3′
{D
to
T3
(3
£”‘I’
I
ill}
in
no
I}.
on
E3.
{I}
C}.
1-1-
:5′
{III
In
C:
C!
III!
E}
U’!
5
Ci
:5
.»-r
r
J………I
rjrouuceu documents regarding his father carrying
P.W.2, first petitioner in MVC No.234/2000 has stated
that, his mother Ningawwa boarded truck MEW 7045 at
Saundatti, by loading potato and onion bags .or oethg
he said vehicie on
5-1-2000, his mother sustained fatai injuries a.rs’r:.1_'”ci,i_ed at the
spot. The driver caused the accident by negiigent
D.
Z’.
S.
3
fiD
‘N
5
an.
IF!’
IE
-3.
ll}
ID.
Fm’-
SE
I3
0
Fl’
3′
ID
‘1
3’
ID
12.
-“3
3
fl}
E3′
£5′.
(3
:E
5*
£1
e ehrtie
iorry. The dead body was remeyeef hr the–._e’v.evn,Aing,_,at 7;?)
p.m. His mother was d,oi_r_ig iousiness “of’:’;on’ionse,and
potatoes. Ex.P.5 is the ,,,,,.»:ee$ ot his mother.
His mother was of.onioAn anciz bags of
potatoes each, weiVg_h’ih_g’ that day, himself
loaded th’e”sal!d g_r:oods5in”th:e’7.’offerSded lorry aiong with his
and the recevhrihg of the information regarding
the.accident,’:he_”I’rnn*.»eo’iateiy went to the spot and noticed
that hisrnjiothrer a=fter”sustaining injuries had died on the spot
his fatherwas stlii alive, and was shifted to Saundatti
V ” ” has stated that the driver charged Rs.40/- for
“,__”‘trans,so.rti:hg 4 bags, In the c.ro-s ….¥I5!”!”.i!”.ét!0.”!
depesed that, his mother boarded the said trucx at :>aurIu’ tti
“ijus stand, she had loaded 2 ‘bags of onion and 2 bags of
potatoes. There were 18 persons in the said truck, his
mother was sitting in the body of the truck. In the said
truck, cement bags were ioadeci and it was tied with
\
Z
9’.”
tarpauiin. He has denied the suggestion that4.his_rnother was
an unauthorised passenger in the truck en«:_.T”t’h*etV*-she-was not
accident and he had tom the Polite ueIbou’t’*-transpoajting the?
goods by his mother and fa_ther}¥.v_i-‘lie fsornejibeiow
the load of cement bags of .said”ior_ry’.v’: has denied the
suggestion that there were no other
load of the goods iynfltithey persons died and ,7-8
persons were-ibis. redi «..=..a.., “essident.
inytnyc Nos.234 and 235/zooo has
debosed that; year nine months back, he boarded
Atheu ioiryiymiaisot’ri;.aaea 4 bags of onion and 2 bags of
..’isi_’1Aj’9oi:’eto; .._for ttransborting from Saundattl to Hubii. His wife
rnavnirwer and after moving a distance of 4 kms. from
u _ _’.j’A”:;’:.-aundattl, the driver lost control of the vehicle and turtled it
by the side of the road. His wife Ningawwa and deceased
Gangappa came below the lorry, he was thrown out and
sustained injuries. His wife and Gangappa died at the spot
\
Z
if’: an a A A A s ; n ‘ a-A ALISL I’ -»’|’ .’
ueugqppa were smueo’ to Government i1espitei.;j—-
5
. D’
“L
5
He was shifted to KMC Ho5Pit__a.L. Hubn,a’rorafonhartreatmehtt
He was transporting 2 bags of oriioh hags..ot?_ootato,’:
each weighing 50 kgs. was aisoivtvttrayeiyiylng withhim
aiong with the said goodVs:;:”‘:-toeceasted tsanngafppa and others
were also traveIVit’hg”1iAn”.V_gth_eJ’sa’i’e.::’b’iogrry, They were also
The driver had
taxen goods. In the cross
examinatio.n;,_he tfithat he has flied a separate
petition Afor_r:l_a’imi’n.g””compensation for injuries sustained by r
him;.._i-ie was the body of the truck. About 7-8
‘ persons.’ weVre”‘traye|iing in the truck. There were about 4
l”i3S denied tun: auggustlfil
to
A ‘–4…spa_ice.in’ the iorry for carrying other goods and that he was
to nottransportlng any goods as stated by him. He has denied
V * . the suggestion that, late Gangappa was also not transporting
any goods and at the time of accident no other goods were
transported except cement. He has denied” the suggestion
that, himself end others were unauthoriseu passengers in the
In
aid iorry and that he did rot observe as to noW–s:t’h.e”–accident
occurred. Poiice had enquiried with him..A’a:hon:t”.tsheiaczcidéent
and he had told the Police about’ trio ttgrainsndrtolinaootofthe
goods.
13. R.W.1_, the g_Assistan_t:’~AdnninistrativAeVgobfficer in the
insured tIn_h_i|1 goods carriage, on the
date__oi’ e.c_cid’ent,” cement bags. He has gone
through AtVhe.Poiice”pa’overs and found that the deceased were
traveitigngr passengers in the offended vehicle
gntthe time. __o’fV accident: They were not transporting other
guodis i_.’.’*t._he iorr”. Thercfore, the Insurarre Co. is not iiabie
cor:i’pensation. in the cross examination, he has
“”stat,ed-that he does not have personai knowledge of the
.. edeceased not carrying the goods, that he has not received
V’ information from the driver or the owner of the vehicle.
He has denied the suggestion that the deceased persons
were travelling by transporting t..eir respective goods ‘*1 the
sate iorry and that they had paid charges to the driver for
%
transporting their respective goods. He VlS’.._fi9t aware,
whether driver of the lorry is alive or dea;”c’i’.W.’ié_i’–e’._lj”denied
cornpensation, he is deposingfaiseiiyj. ‘1 ”
14. Exhibit P.1 is the Fifi”irerusai-ofthe some shows that
the complalnantvvas :.l§lag..anvag.owda taiirevvagowda. In
the complaint, it was’etated::th~a’tv,.’ ‘he_.boarded the truck MEW
7045,. winmi;-«as toatled w’ith’*£:ernent bags
were eitti.ng..V and were also people inside the cabin. In
the vehitie, their-e¢’w.ere abobt 20 persons. The driver of the
trtiel§’,V~told by the inmates not to drive the
_uehIclle”‘in:V high speed, disregarding the advice and without
“i–..”:si1.owing anvieoheern towards the Inmates, drove the vehicle
3 speed and in negligent manner and after about 4
I Seundettl, while ettemnttn
nu:-rv rig
‘ ” the vehicie and cause” the accident at
aka. ‘ad; I… L. .4
V’ic:lI!t..ie3, He Lu!
5
CL
e
.00 pm. Himself and 4-5 personsjumped out of the
vehicle and the remaining persons got trapped below the
truck. He has sustained injuries. People gathered and pulled
l
K
K’.
out the injured from the bottom of the truck, outyof whom, 8
had died and 8 others had received the inJu.r!e§_;r’__’__r:”‘..’
Ci
hi
(‘I-
S
“”iK .
-an
ffli
:5 x .
(‘
mi
I–I
ni-
shows that goods truck, 704.15′ w_a’s .”f-ouriidiiiupside down,
having met with accident’,fiVfi”th.e it/e’hi’ci’e4 was found in
damaged conditioni’ 5epsj..were found scattered
by the side was found torn and
there some chappals were found
v..a’v’e been mentioned t’ner’in, from which it
is_see.n”~that .thverAe«._was no mention about any potato, onion or
._’:L_j’iany.cAV:othAer i/’e’g’et–a’bIe bags, etc. being found at the accident
A – if “sp’et:§
15. ;_ similar is the evidence in respec
V «. H-H
;?euI..I0i”IS.
17. From the oral evidence of the witnesses examined in
the claim petitions it is clear that, more than 16 persons
\
X
r/’ \ ‘
29
were travelling in the goods truck and that tvhe..:4:t’r.uck was
loaded with 200 bags of cement, covered__’:iv’!’th _e’..j:te.:,:oeu!in=
bags, nor any of them, much iessigthteob itnmatesva-rrAas.:.havingA I
booked the iorry for transportiragthe ::’The
evidence is to the effect’V’Vi’tha’t the: had paid
charges to the itvverei”‘t.ransporting goods ilke
potato, onion bagsH_:t_o..V does not show
personf _VExfi_.:§’-‘,2, aiso does not indicate the
presence “of_..an§.veget:abIes or bags containing vegetables at
the scene otV_.ac’cid’ent”;’«.”The claim that injured/dead were
trensportin_g ‘goods ivnhthe iorry has not been proved. The
‘ v-‘:rgéry”n’.presenceAofrnore than 15 persons in the goods iorry,
bags of cement in it, shows that they were
it.” Ihe petitioners have faiied to estabiish that the iorry was
‘V__h’ooked for carrying the goods by the injured/dead and that
they had loaded the goods and were accompanying the
goods to the destination. Ex.P.1 and P.2 are undisputed
documents. Contents of the said documents, do not show
W
K
30
the presence of any goods like potatoes, onio,ne,:,:”ae_ claimed
by the injured or the heirs of the deceaeefd”‘in«’..’theV5aeeldent.
The contention of Sri. B.C.seetnarai”ne~%3o,~,iear*ied VCt’itii’i:-Eel
for the petitioner, relying upon fthef’vd’eci’sio’n 4in’:at,he,;case’**of.i
ORIENTAL INSURANCE (20,, LTD,’ PRa..-«1L;§,’rn: ui<tmo
OTHERS, reported in that it is not
permissible to ,t"'d.oc,uinentswhich have been
marked only for limited, to rely upon the
marked -'qivecltiniente !'= othe_r"*p'n~rp'ose=, is wet! .om'-tied in
lull!
view of the ti_er;iaretio~ri_- o_f"ia'w 'therein, to the foiiowing effect;
V "'i0,'i'he"«ins-urer, however, would be liable
" V, tore' i.rnb,urse-.._th'e""insureci to the extent of the
"damages oeyafeie by the owner to the claimants
. subjects of course to the limit of its liability as
» laid "donrrf_I_,,»in the Act or the contract of
insurance. Proof of rashness and negligence on
*.th_e"'= part of the driver of the Vehicle, is
ther.efore, sine qua non for maintaining an
' ."appiication under Section 166 of the Act.
11.The learned Counsel appearing on
* behalf of the respondent contended that First
Information Report was brought on record for
the purpose of proving the accident and not for
fixing the iiebiiity on the part of driver of the
vehicle involved therein.
12. In Narbada Devi (supra) whereupon
reliance has been placed, this Court held that
contents of a document are not automatically
proved only because the same is marked as an
\/
/’,,.
0′
Exhibit. There is no dispute with regard
said legal proposition. ‘ ” ‘
13. However, the factum of aozident-«<_
couici aiso be proved frornthe First'In.forrn»avtion:., "
Report. It is also to noted thot"o_rs;:e"e
part of the contents'-.,of;'the§ doou_n'ion,te'–..,i§<[
admitted in evidenoe,'»t!:e!_ aorta? hi'§':-.fi'i,iifi
the some on record-..oannot he permittedito
turn around and "a:o"io.tond ihait .'.i:iI{e other
contents contained in._tie.e restport thereof
had not Beetn..,provo!oii.,._"Both the parues have
roiled thereupon It wasrnerked as an Exhibit
as both the parties lrs–tenVdedti'tojrereiy upon them.
, 41,4;-.Onc _a_,}part"'of~~.it isjreliod upon by
iootirf: the pm-i:ieo,_,.iV:E1,o "learned Tribunal
osonr§_ot"""iie » have committed ny
iliegaiity in ~reI."yin,g upon the other part,
""" "irr_eiopaotive"'–., 'of the' oontonte of the
doousnont, proved or not. If the
.l
eon'tenteere.he,-.:e.. hear: ,-sroveu, the fiueetion
'of _roiiane'e _ thereupon only upon a part
titnareof -.and Knot upon the root, on the
_ toohn_ic-.'a'I ground that the some had not
1 been proved in aooordanoe with law, would
notiorisa.
A party ob’ectir* to the adrnissioiiity
‘oTf;a,,1=document must raise its objection at the
~a_p._oropriate time. if the objection is not raised
.. land the document is allowed to be marked and
“that too at the instance of a party which had
proved the eeme end wherefor consent of the
other party -has been obtained, the former in
our opinion oarmot be permitted to turn round
and raise a contention that the contents of the
documents had not been proved and, thus,
should not be relied upon. In Hukum Singh.
(supra), the law was correctly been laid down
by the Pooiao and Her”=”a H’-h Court statir
_.r
“3. Mr. G.C.Mlttal, learned Counseivfot”‘the
respondent contended that Ram Pretap.”‘ha’d4
produced oniy his former dep_os’ition…_:ehd
gave no evidence in Court which r;oui’d'”he’: ”
considered by the Additional..E§sti’i:ct-.3utige;”
I am afraid there–“”i’s—.no”_ meritgin
The Trial :C:ou;rt<_heci '~di'sr;usseo?.'
the evidence of Rarr'.yPrat'ap irithe iight._.of..
the report Exhiiznt D.1 pro'ducer!»'by.him. The ' ,
Additional Distri.et"~~Judge .witiiev-._he.e'ring" the "
C0!"ltél'iti0|'l.
appeal could heave _comrnented {on that
evideneeend heid itvtohe inadreissiioie if law
so permitted. But .h’e«._di.d”n.ot at all have this
evidence beforei.hVi’s:.’mind;_itwas not a case
ofVinadmissl’bi.e veviden’ce”eith’er. No doubt
the prooedurertedopted byythe trial Court in
?.lettiet7 i:’ertif’ied~’eep\,r of the previous
‘ ‘de’pos–ition_V…___of._ Rfam Partap made in the
t;riminei’ proceetii-nee end eiiowiog the same
_ ‘to sprovecl by’-Ram Partap himself was not
A”t;_orret;t and he should have been examined
‘again in Vi’re§_ierd’ to all that he had stated
” _ ee.rIie.r’.in”‘t_he« statement the parties in order
to save ‘time did not object to the previous
..depo’siti’on’ being proved by Ram Partap
h”lrnse__i_fA.who was only cross-examined. It is
not a case where irrelevant evidence had
..:””*vheen let in with the consent of the parties
“a~.bfet the only objection is that the procedure
[followed in the matter of giving evidence in
lcou was not correct.
when the perties
themselves have allowed certain statements
to be pieced on the record as a part of their
evidence, it is not open to them to urge later
either in the same Court or in a Court of
eopee! that the evidence produced’ was
inadmissible. To allow them to do so would
indeed be permitting them both to approbate
lull in His:
and reprobate.”
(Bold is by us for emphasis.)
i
X
18. From perusal of Ex.P.1 and P2, It is.~’~cli.afa:!l’..’._j_i’?«3~’§iVtit the
H.
beiohgind to the imured or deau,.t.ca;.hh.ou’ fs’e._hoti.cedA,T jEx.P_.1_j
and P.2 have come into exvistevhce imthediateiljfiaftero» the
accident. Ex.P.2 shows thelirehicie, presence
of torn tarpauil’h:§»../.t_cenfie’ll.fiAVi’:’l)aci_s~–..and’other articles like
chappais, etc., ‘i*i.ke}~~ohion, potato, etc. as
claimed ;i,j\,i”;;th’e .,t§_titioriers,,::’belonging to the injured/dead.
provethat,thei”r.j.ureti,’ciead”‘had booked the goods vehicle for
tra’hsp~orting.’jol’~.t’heA:_A’goods, had loaded the goods arid that
_ they were awccorrepahying the goods. The very fact that the
V-‘:._”€’loir’r.y had inHlt””2’OO bags of cement, the ownership or booking
3 of:jw’hi4c’lV:::was not claimed by any of the injured/dead, shows
Erepresentatlve oi’ the goods in the vehicle. The point for
consideration is whether appellant can be held liable to
satisfy the award when the petitioners have failed to prove
that the injured/dead were_not the owner of goods or
i ,
.2
S, trafiafiefififi _
vehicie. Tribunai by reiying upon the
SINGH and RAMESH KUMAR (Siiipfa) hestthveidjvtheioippejiitéritey
insurer to be iiabie. Hon’bie:”Sup’_rerne’Court of ‘:
NEW INDIA ASSURANCEr’VC_’0,zVvsi”A$i-iA aA~i,ireeiea in AIR
2003 SC 607, noticing thi§”!:aw.._vlaidh’d«owAn_i§n the case of
Ina Setpel’s. “ciaj’se____H(supra), the Court
asst:.,me’d ._that«th-e provisions of Section 95(1) of
Motor»VV’ehiciesj*–.i_Actv;_y. ‘1,93~-9 are identical with
Sez:tien.;_;,147(1)V’ot*th_e Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,
“”” “ess.it:,stodd’prior-to itsemendment. But a carefui
scruti–‘ny~..ofitheprovisions would make it clear that
prior” to’«t’r’ie’erni’encin1ent of 1994 it was necessary
for-the”–insu’rer”to insure against the owner of the
goods V or ihis’~~~”authorised representative being
carrie-d_”in a” goods vehicle. on an erroneous
;_ impressi’ =–n——tnis Court came to the conclusion that
” f the..insurer would be iiehie to pay compensation in
“respect of the death or bodiiy injury caused to
:”‘–e’i_tner*v”the owner of the goods or his authorised
representative when being carried in a goods
‘vehicle the accident occurred. If the Motor
~. gvehicies Amended Act of 1994 is examined,
‘ — particularly Section 46 of Act 5 of 1991 by which
expression ‘injury to any person’ in the origin-ei
Act stood substituted by the expression ‘injury to
any person inciuding owner of the goods or his
authorised representative carried in the vehicle’
the conclusion is irresistible that prior to the
aforesaid Amendment Act of 1994, even if widest
interpretation is given to the expression ‘to any
person’ it wiii not cover either the owner of the
goods or his authogised representative being
i
/’
//..
cerried in the yehicie. The objects and reasons
NF
II? U’
clause 46 also states that it” seeks…._to»..arnend
1.
Section 147 to inciude owner of the—good’s.ijo–r “rats
authorised representative carriedHin.._the=vehi’cl–e_
for the purposes of liability und«er’the’uIn’surance ”
Policy. It is no doubtftrue”tha*t_ s:orn..ei;-!rnves”th’e
legislature amends the afliaw <._b'y_' way.' 'of
arnpiification of an inn rent position.tfri1iah
the words used in ti1estatute,*- as"'i?.':3to"Qd prior to
its amendment of ____'i-Qsie, an'd~._as it stands
subsequent. "to_ its" amendment in" "1994 and
bearing in mi'nd"t_he_ objject'eg'ahd reasons ehgrafted
in the amended :prov*isions._referred to earlier, it is
difficult. for vu's'~-to construev_ that the expression
'inciudlnjg ownerjof~the'.j_good;s or his authorised
representative c'.=a_rried}–in the vehicle which was
a'dde.d. to'lthe–jjpresekylsteci— expression ' Injury to
any "per_son' is evitiierciaytificatory or amplification
the presexisti-ng statute. on the other hand it
_cieari.ywdemonst-rates that the legislature wanted
to 'bring."'-with_ini–.,the sweep of Section 147 and
' «marking. lt'.VCorn–puisory for the insurer to insure
evenv in case oi?'a goods vehicle, the owner of the
* goodsor his authorised representative being
carried' inmagoods vehicle when that vehicle met
f with an accident and the owner of the goods or
I fiil
"h_i'sV'riepresentative either dies or suffers bodily
V' _ t..J..';_i._.,~'
= y "iliJl.ii3.i'.
The judgment of this Court in Satpai”s
‘ca;_se’, therefore must be held to have not been
“correctly decided and the impugned judgment of
the Tribunal as well as that of the High Court
accordingly are set aside and these appeals are
aiiowed. It is heid that th insurer is!!! not be
liable for paying compensation to the owner of
goods or his authorised representative on being
carried in a goods vehicle when that vehicle
meets with an accident and the owner of goods or
his representative dies or suffers any bodily
injury.”
‘X
‘.-.ra.|;.~……’..~
i::1I.m:i cu
in the statute, butra ‘plain rneanllngi”bei.ng-..gl\ren to.’
14-‘
U-
1O Tfi
.I.7u IL
55′
clear from the said decleéon that,..vtne«..deciaion in
s TFAL SINGH has been held to be the
case of RAMESH KUMAR, the__dec_l_slon~’l’n’v”§i5r?¥TFi)5i:L,’_’§Iliit3Hhad
been foilowed. Since the
SINGH is held to be notbglood law .t_he.:V’la’rger…Benoh the
Apex Court, in the case the Tribunal,
s lifted hwldlng the appellant as
in our view was no5&.’.._i, . .. .._
n..1._1.. 1.- -_:.i,_g.- LI_; _~.,,.:V.-_
H3033 E0 535: * TY {H52 awalas.
2o. INSURANCE co.l:rb. vs.
<:i1oi.,'..é*l'Iiil"aH,r§a49l"ré§'i~i..MAAND 0RS., reported in 2007 AIR
SC\'llf'V.7:3l3v7',V.the question about the liability of the
_;,.Inse,iranVce; to indemnify the owner of the vehicle, in
of passengers travelling in goods carriage,
the various decisions rendered earlier, it has
been that in the absence of proof that the deceased was
A. trairelllng in lorry along with the driver or cleaner, as owner
it " goods, travelling with goods itself, does not entitle any one
to protection under Sec. 147 of the Act.
21. Hon’ble supreme Court in the case of sirr. THQKCHOM
ONGOI SANGEETA AND ANOTHER’ vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE
X,
/,
–
<n
CO.LTD. & ORS., reportedin AIR 2008 SC 24.5V;il»-considering
the claim of third party risks in the oaci<.gro'~':«osvt..or .:veh_!c!es
a.-kg-i..u._…..a. a!
Chapter Vfil, has held as follovys f: it
9. The di,fe.rence in~t.;e..gisngeeg’e’Vof
“goods vehicle” as app*earing in ‘th.eC.’)id Act and
“gooo’s carriage” in ,ti’1’e-Act is-__of significance. A
bare readlng…_o’f the provi..sion’s makes It clear
that the legislative i’n.ten’t w’as’:to”‘prohibit goods
vehiclefrom yc:arrv,ting_ any”‘passien”ger. This is
cleaphfrorn {the ‘expression :*’in addition to
passen;;,=ers’f ‘conta_ined*——+:’ definition of
“;goo’d.s”*ve*hicl«efi__ in Vthefloid Act. The position
becomes fL’n”ther.”_’clea*r because the expression
—- ~=u.sed lsii::,’~’go–ods ca’rr!.-age” is solely for the
“carri_agVe’~of goods”_. _* Carrying of passengers in
–_ ‘a goods’-»..ca»rri”age’– is not contemplated in the
” Act. Therevis'”no'”provision similar to clause (ii)
V! the prov{s’o__a’ppended to Section 95 of the
. Old ._Act~pre’scribing requirement of insurance
” poiicy}-V Even Section 147 of the Act mandates
compulsory coverage against death of or bodily
seamen:-y to any passenger of “public service
._”-«..i\.I’eh’icie”. The proviso makes it further clear
‘ «t’if:.at[:= compulsory coverage in respect of drivers
. ~an.o’ conductors of public service vehlcie and
employees carried in goods vehicle would be
* limited to liability under the Workrnenls
Compensation Act, 1923. There is no
reference to any passenger in “goods
rarriand’
&flIIl¢ n
10. The inevitable conciusion, truer re, I5
that provisions of the Act do not enjoin any
statutory liability on the owner of a vehicle to
get his vehicle insured for any passenger
:/
(‘I
III!:uldl!£;i=}v~..l.iEa’l’t_ W5 ‘i__ fififiéf
travelling In a goods carriage and th- ihssiret.
would have no liability therefor.
11. The above position was highlighted in’-._
Devireddy irionda Raddy” and.”‘t.’n’s,’j’s “case ”
(supra) and National Insurance ‘Compamr Ltd’. 1
v. Ajit Kumar and Ors. (AIR :2£\.G3 BC ’30*.?3′},§,,..«
12 The High court.._was}’-therefore;A..ju.stlfl.edVh
in hoiding t’* *
“at the insurer was—-n_oi;~.ii_abie.,”
(Underiining isby asp)’ –
22. In vle’nro–f and the law declared
by the Honfhle-Eugorerfne’~~C_o’t;rt,.; in our view, the Tribunal was
notvjustlfled i’ii;:.:hol’dlbn–g thatrwwthe insurer is ilahle to pay the
eonthehlsatlolfitoh “the,reshohdentsjpetltloners. Hence, we
5′
Holt’. that, v.the.1Tr_ihunal was not justified in fastening the
_~ii:abvi_iityVv on “the..____.ahpellant — Insurance Co. to satisfy the
awavrds;«.The arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for
H ‘– ‘petltIo’n’ers;lo’lalmants, is without any merit and is negatlved.
In the result, appeals are allowed and the impugned
against the appellant, shall stand dismissed. Consequently,
the cross-objections, seeking enhancement of award amount,
\..
at.-
.{r
39
circumstances, we direct the parties to ‘G€%’–?__u”{i’i’~5-.’.§’i”‘—-__§’iE’f5fi€:C”Vé
Office/Tribunal, Is’ -.ljVereAby. ‘ ‘diifeCS;1e::Ci ; > the
amount deposited, either Interim orders
passed or -at :f!i{»%i§’~theséA appe-als, to the
appellant. ‘} ”