NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. BASAVACHARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE solitary point involved in this appeal is the question as to whether there could be any claim sustainable from the injured claimant since the vehicle in question was a goods vehicle and the claimant admits that he was traveling as a passenger in the vehicle. In fact, his evidence is to the effect that he and P. W. 2 were waiting for a bus to travel to Hassan instead of which they boarded the lorry and paid some money to the driver for the journey. The Tribunal after examining the facts came to the conclusion that the injured was undoubtedly traveling as a passenger in the vehicle but that he would still be entitled to compensation because some sort of case has been pleaded that he had purchased some vegetables and that he was carrying the same along with him. He has also stated that he had paid Rs. 10/- to the truck driver for this purpose.

(2.) THE evidence before the Tribunal as usual was very limited and as in characteristic of the manner in which these cases are conducted before the Tribunal, this proceeding was taken very lightly and followed the same negligent style that has become the hallmark of the persons who conduct these compensation cases. It has also become routine to cover up for the illegal presence of the passengers in a goods vehicle by contending that the passenger was carrying on some goods and accompanying them. What needs to be emphasised is that the illegality of travelling in goods vehicle does not get altered merely because one is carrying something when he boards the vehicle. The law is being wrongly interpretted by the Tribunal by accepting such defences mechanically, as a result of which, the Insurance Company's are saddled with liabilities in numerous proceedings where the claimant is on the wrong side of the law.

(3.) THE respondent's learned Advocate drew my attention to the fact that P. W. 1 who is a vegetable merchant has deposed to the fact that he had accompanied the claimant in the truck along with 5 or 6 others. He supports the version of the claimant that they were returning from the Market and that they were carrying vegetables which was why they boarded the truck and paid the driver a fee of Rs. 10/- for carrying their vegetable load and that they were in fact accompanying the goods. There is a serious doubt with regard to whether P. W. 1 was at all present in the truck for the reason that even though he claims to have been injured he has neither lodged any complaint nor preferred any claim. This virtually leaves the entire case to hinge upon the evidence of the claimant. Learned Advocate points out to me that there is hardly any challenge in the cross-examination of the claimant's evidence and he makes a strong submission that even if the Court were to feel that better evidence were possible, that the order of the tribunal should not be interfered with because the Trial Court which is the best Judge on facts has come to the conclusion that the claimant was in fact accompanying the goods. There is some substance in this last submission because the Trial Court had the advantage of examining the demeanour of the witness and even though it is a grey area, the Trial Court on the facts before it accepted the position that the claimant was accompanying the goods in question.