LexNATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. versus CHOLLETI BHARATAMMA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. A v. CHOLLETI BHARATAMMAAND ORS. OCTOBER 12, 2007 B [S.B. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.) )'- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: s.147 (before and after amendment)- Death or injuries suffered by gratutious passengers travelling in goods c carriage-Liability of insurer to indemnifY the owner of goods carriage in respect of death/injury of passengers-Held: Not liable. The prime question involved in all these appeals is regarding liability of the insurance company to indemnity the owner of the vehicle in respect of death of passengers travelling in goods carriage. D ·InCA@SLP(c)Nos. 7237-39/2003,theclaimantsweretravelling in a lorry which met with an accident. Tribunal allowed their claim petitions. High Court dismissed the appeal of insurance company. Allowing the appeal, the Court E HELD: 1. Carrying of passengers in a goods carriage is not contemplated in the Motor Vehicles Act. Even compulsory coverage in respect of drivers and conductors of public service vehicle and employees carried in goods vehicle is limited to liability under the F > }'· Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. There is no reference to any passenger in "goods carriage". The inevitable conclusion, therefore, is that provisions of the Act do not e_njoin any statutory liability on the owner of a vehicle to get his vehicle insured for any passenger travelling in a goods carriage and the insurer would have no liability therefor. G [Para 11] [539-D,E,F] ~ ~ New India Assurance Co. Ltd v.Asha Rani and Ors., [2003} 2 SCC 223; National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Baljit Kaur & Ors., [2004) 2 SCC 1; 531 H \ 532 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 11 S.C.R. ... • A National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Bommithi Subbhayamma & Ors., [2005) 12 SCC 243; New India Assurance Co. Ltd v. Vedwati & Ors., (2007) 3 SCALE 397 and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd v. Brij Mohan & Ors., (2007) 7 SCALE 753, relied on. B New India Insurance Co. v. Satpal Singh & Ors., [2000) 1 SCC 237 and Ramesh Kumar v. National Insurance Co. Ltd & Anr., [2001] 6 sec 713, ref erred to. ~- In CA@SLP(c) Nos.7241-43/2003, petition was filed claiming c compensation on death of deceased who had paid a sum of Rs.20/-for travelling in the lorry. Tribunal held insurance company liable. On appeai High Court held that all insurance policies covering third party risks would not exclude gratuitous passenger. Dismissing the appeal, the Court D HELD: The owner of the goods means only the person who travels in the cabin of the vehicle. The High Court had proceeded on the basis ~ that they were gratuitous passengers. The admitted plea of the respondents themselves was that the deceased had boarded the lorry E and paid an amount of Rs.20/- as transport charges. It has not been proved that the deceased was travelling in the lorry along with the driver or the cleaner as the owner of the goods. Travelling with the goods itself .does not entitle anyone to protection under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act. [Paras17and18) 541-E, F] .p In CA @SLP(c) Nos. 724812003, twenty persons were travelling in a truck which met with an accident. Tribunal held that the insurer is -.( ~ liable to pay compensation only to one non-fare paying passenger who is owner of the goods carried in the truck. High Court dismissed the appeal. G Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: Out of twenty persons, it is the respondents having »-- '1 preferred an appeal, at least the claimants-respondents are entitled to H compensation as the deceased was travelling as owner of the goods. ii•· ~ NA TI ON AL INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. CHOLLETI 533 BHARA TAMMA [SINHA, J.] The Tribunal discussed the matter in great details. It is not in dispute A that premium has been paid only for one person. [Para 23] [543-F, G] In CA @ SLP(c) Nos. 728812003, respondent was travelling as a passenger in a lorry which met with an accident. Tribunal awarded B compensation. High Court dismissed the appeal of insurance company. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: The submission of respondent that he was travelling as the owner of goods is not correct in view of evidence of PW-2. c [Paras 26] [544-D] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 4845- 484 7 of 2007. From the Judgment and final Order dated 13.11.2002 of the High D Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in A A.O. Nos. 1387, ~ 1901 and 1923 of 1998. WITH C.A. Nos. 4848-4850, 4851 and 4852-4854 of 2007.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.