ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. VEERAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE revision petitions are filed by petitioner company as it is aggrieved of the judgment and award dated 19. 3. 2001 passed in M. V. C. Nos. 282, 283, 284, 288, 289 and 306 of 1997 in awarding compensation of Rs. 1,000, rs. 3,000, Rs. 2,000, Rs. 3,000, Rs. 2,000 and Rs. 3,000 respectively. The petitioner has also filed M. F. A. Nos. 3039-3043 of 2001 aggrieved of the judgment and awards passed in M. V. C. Nos. 281, 285, 286, 287 and 290 of 1997 awarding compensation of Rs. 1,50,000, Rs. 15,000, Rs. 55,000, rs. 17,364 and Rs. 65,387 respectively in favour of the claimants therein. Thereby the total compensation awarded by the m. A. C. T. , Koppal, against the petitioner company is Rs. 3,16,751. It is contended by Mr. S. P. Shankar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner company that as per the policy issued to the insured in respect of the lorry bearing registration No. KA 26-1632 the liability of the company is limited to 6+1 persons who were travelling in the lorry along with the goods. The M. A. C. T. , Koppal has fastened liability on the insurer to satisfy all the 11 awards passed by it. Therefore, it is urged by the learned counsel that the same is, contrary to rules 100 and 101 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (in short called as 'the Rules'), as the State government is empowered to frame rules in exercise of its power under section 176 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short 'm. V. Act') in regard to carrying of persons in a goods vehicle. Further, it is contended by learned counsel that depending on the unladen weight of the vehicle a certain number of coolies are allowed to be carried, intra city but not intercity. Light goods vehicle (in short 'l. G. V. ') can carry 3+1 persons while Heavy Goods Vehicle (in short 'h. G. V. ') can carry 6+1 persons. Further, he has contended that in view of the rules referred to supra framed under the provisions of the M. V. Act by the State government, insured alone is made liable to pay the compensation to the claimants in the event of death or personal injury to them either more than 3+1 or 6+1 persons depends upon the vehicle in question involved in the accident. In support of his submission, he has placed strong reliance upon a judgment of this court rendered in national Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Dundamma, 1992 ACJ 1 (Karnataka) and unreported judgment in W. P. No. 6839 of 1999, M. F. A. No. 1575 of 1996 and other appeals.

(2.) THE offending vehicle in these cases is the H. G. V. Therefore, the liability of the insurer to pay the compensation amount to the claimants is for 6+1 persons. Nearly 160 persons of a marriage party were found travelling in the vehicle on the date when the accident has occurred as per Exh. P-l, f. I. R. The company has already satisfied three awards passed by the Workmen's compensation Commissioner in respect of 3 employees of the insured arising under the workmen compensation cases under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 and Rules framed thereunder. In the present common judgment, there are 12 awards in favour of the family of marriage party under the M. V. Act, totally there are 15 awards passed by the m. A. C. T. , Koppal against the company, it is contended by the learned counsel for the company that under the provisions of M. V. Act, passengers travelling in a goods vehicle are not covered under section 147 of the Act and, therefore, they are not entitled for compensation amount awarded by the m. A. C. T. from the company. In support of this submission, he has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered in Mallawwa v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. , 1999 ACJ 1 (SC ). Further, in view of law laid down by the Apex Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Satpal Singh, 2000 ACJ 1 (SC) and in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajendra Singh, 2000 ACJ 1039 (Karnataka), an insurer is liable to pay compensation amount in respect of gratuitous passengers who will be the claimants irrespective of the limited liability as agreed between the petitioner company and insured in view of omission of clause (ii) of the proviso to section 95 (1) (b) of the old Act from the corresponding section 147 of the new M. V. Act of 1988. Therefore, it is urged that there is no coverage for passengers in a goods vehicle in the policy issued by the insurer, the liability to satisfy 6+1 persons under rule 100 of the Rules and, therefore, it is liable to pay the same and the same is honoured, and it is liable to satisfy the said awards in respect of the claimants only. Since three awards passed under the Workmen's Compensation Act, the same are already satisfied by the company, the remaining extent of liability of the insurer is for 4 persons and best this court can direct it to pay the remaining 4 persons claims, whose awards are the highest amount of compensation awarded by the M. A. C. T. , Koppal. Therefore, the company has approached this court for issuing a direction to choose 4 out of 12 awards passed by the M. A. C. T. so that the remaining liability of the insurer as per the common judgment and awards passed by M. A. C. T. , Koppal in the aforesaid claim petitions of the claimants can be discharged by it.

(3.) THE above said legal contentions urged by the learned counsel on behalf of the company are examined by this court with reference to the various provisions of the M. V. Act, namely, sections 146, 147 particularly sections 147 (5), 149 (1), 149 (2) and 149 (4) read with rule 100 of the rules. This court has also examined the law laid down in the following cases by the Apex Court after interpretation of the provisions of the repealed M. V. Act, 1939 and the terms and conditions incorporated in the policies issued by the insurer in favour of the insured in the following judgments with a view to find out and answer the legal questions raised in these cases by urging legal submissions by the learned counsel on behalf of petitioner company: new Asiatic Insurance Co. v. Pessumal dhanamal Aswani, 1958-65 ACJ 559 (SC ). Guru Govekar v. Filomena F. Lobo, 1988 ACJ 585 (SC ). Skandia Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kokila-ben Chandravadan, 1987 ACJ 411 (SC ). G. Govindan v. New India Assurance co. Ltd. , 1999 ACJ 781 (SC ). New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Kamla, 2001 ACJ 843 (SC ). Amrit Lal Sood v. Kaushalya Devi Tha-par, 1998 ACJ 531 (SC ).