SOWMYA G S Vs. SYED NAJAMUDDIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Srirangapatna (the 'Tribunal', for short), in MVC No. 404 of 2010.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts are that the claimants are widow, minor child and father of the deceased Shivakumaraswamy. The claimants instituted the claim petition contending that the deceased had engaged a maxi-cab goods vehicle bearing No. KA-41/2886 on 22-3-2010 for transporting vegetables to the market and while travelling, he met with a road traffic accident due to the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. Accordingly the claimants sought for compensation for the death of the deceased Shivakumaraswamy. The insurer entered appearance and resisted the claim. The Tribunal after appreciating the evidence on record, awarded total compensation of Rs. 4,38,000.00 with interest at 6% p.a. exonerating the insurer from the liability and fastened the liability on respondent 1, the registered owner of the offending vehicle. Being aggrieved, the claimants/appellants are before this Court.

(3.) Sri M.Y. Sreenivasan, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant assailing the impugned judgment and award would contend that the Tribunal grossly erred in absolving the insurer and fastened the liability on the owner to satisfy the award. It is submitted that the deceased was travelling in the offending vehicle along with the goods i.e. vegetables. The deceased was travelling as the owner of the goods and not as a gratuitous passenger as held by the Tribunal. Learned Counsel placing reliance on Sec. 147(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 contends that subsequent to amendment of Sec. 147(1) by Act 54 of 1994 with effect from 14-11-1994, the Insurance Policy issued by the insurer covers against any liability which may be incurred in respect of death of/or bodily injury to any person, including the owner of goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle. Thus, the deceased travelling in the offending vehicle, as the owner of the goods, is covered under the policy issued by the insurer and the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the owner of the offending vehicle. Learned Counsel further contends that Rule 100(1) of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 ('KMV Rules', for short) contemplates the number of persons to be carried in a goods vehicle. Admittedly, the offending vehicle being a DCM cantor not falling under clauses (1) and (2) of the proviso appended to Rule 100(1) of the KMV Rules, seven persons were permitted to travel in a goods vehicle in question. The deceased was travelling with the goods along with other seven persons who were travelling along with their goods, which is the permitted seating capacity as per Rule 100(1) of KMV Rules. The Tribunal overlooking this statutory provision exonerated the insurer on the ground that there was breach of terms and conditions of the policy, which is totally unsustainable. Accordingly, he seeks to saddle the liability on the insurer to satisfy the award.