LexUNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. versus SURESH K.K. & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A [2008] 5 S.C.R. 1178 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. v SURESH K.K. & ANR. (Civil Appeal No. 2565 of 2008) APRIL 4,2008 (S.8. SINHA AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ss.147(1) and 166 - Three wheeler 'goods carriage' - C Accident- Injury to person sitting by the side of driver claiming himself as 'owner of goods' - Claim for compensation - Allowed by High Court directing the insured and insurer to pay the compensation - Held: High Court may be correct inholding that owner of goods would be covered in terms of s.147(1) - D But, as no other person whether passenger or owner of vehicle is supposed to share the seat of the driver, violation of condition of contract of insurance is proved - Tribunal and High Court should have held the owner of the vehicle as guilty of breach of condition of policy- However, keeping in view the E fact that the claimant being a coolie and may not be able to realise the dues from owner of the vehicle, with a view to do complete justice between the parties, insurer is directed to pay the amount to the claimant and realise the same from owner of the vehicle - Insurance - Breach of condition of policy - F Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 142. National Insurance Co. Ltd. v Baljit Kaur 2004(2) SCC 1 referred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. G 2565 of 2008. H From the final Judgment and Order dated 7.4.2006 of the High Court of Kera la Ernakulam in MACA No. 1018/2004 K.L. Nandwani, S.K. Mishra, Raj Kishore Choudhary and 1178 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. SURESH KK. 1179 &ANR. Debasis Mishra for the Appellant. A The following order of the Court was delivered: .Leave granted. Despite service of notice nobody has appeared on behalf of the responden~. B The core question which arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether a person who has hired a goods carriage vehide would come within the purview of sub-Section 1 of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, although no goods c as such were carried in the vehicle. The claimant/respondent was a 'coolie-worker'. He allegedly hired an auto rickshaw which is a goods carriage vehicle bearing registration No. KL-8/M8568. The accident occurred when he was sitting by the side of the driver. According D to him the driver was driving the vehicle in a most rash and negligent manner. When the vehicle reached at Kandanchira, the driver turned it to the left side without applying brake, as a result whereof, it overturned: The claimant allegedlYsuffered the following injuries : E "1. Compound fracture lower both bones of 113rd left leg and multiple abrasions. 2. Lacerated would (R) & (L) Legs." He filed a claim application in terms of Section 166 of the F Motor Vehicles Act for a sum of Rs. 2.25 Lakhs; the details 't whereof are as under : "a) Loss of earning from 13.08.99 to till now b) Partial loss of earnings from ..... to ..... at the net rate of Rs ..... a day I week c) Transport of hospital Rs. 15,000.00 G Rs. 10,000.00 Rs. 3,000.00 H 1180 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 5 S.C.R. A d) Extra nourishment Rs. 25,000.00 e) Damage of clothing & Article Rs. 2,000.00 f) Other : Medical Expenses Rs. 40,000.00 95,000.00 B g) Compensation for pain & suffering Rs. 30,000.00 h) Compensation for continuing or permanent disability, if any Rs. 50,000.00 i) Compensation for the loss of c earning Rs. 50,000.00 Rs. 1,30,000.00 Total Rs. 2,25,000.00 D Appellant in his written statement raised the contention that although the vehicle in question was insured, it is not liable to reimburse the owner of the vehicle as the injured was not the owner of the alleged goods carried therein, and he was travelling as a gratuitous passenger. Violation of conditions of policy was E also alleged. By reason of the award dated 23.01.2003, the Tribunal held : F G "10. I have already found that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the goods auto rickshaw by the 1st respondent. That he was also the owner of that vehicle, at the time of accident, is evident from Ext A3, Report of Inspection of the vehicle. Hence he is liable to pay the rickshaw was insured with the 2nd respondent the time of accident. Ext. 81 is copy of the insurance policy. Hence, they respondents 1 and 2 are liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner. Issue is found accordingly." A sum of Rs. 1.19,300/- was awa
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.