R SATHYANARAYANA Vs. MURALIDHARA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals have been filed by the appellants, occupants of the car who were injured claimants against the judgment and award dated 22. 10. 1993 passed by the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal-I, Hassan in M. V. C. Nos. 262, 263, 264 and 265 of 1986 dismissing the claim petitions for compensation against the owner of the car and the insurance company.

(2.) HEARD the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 owner and the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 insurance company.

(3.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that in M. V. C. Nos. 262 to 265 of 1986 from which the present appeals have been filed, in the policy Exh. R2, it is mentioned that the policy covers the use for social, domestic or pleasure purposes and for the business of the insured. The learned counsel for the claimants have contended that the occupants who were travelling in the car were returning after attending a dance programme at the time of the accident. It must be held that the car was given for the use of social, domestic and pleasure purposes by the respondent No. 1 owner of the car. The Tribunal has held that since the car was not used by the respondent No. 1 owner at the time of the accident for his social, domestic or pleasure purposes and as it was given to his acquaintance G. S. Venkatesh, Advocate, for his use. So, the said purpose for which the car was given for the use by the deceased Venkatesh cannot be considered as the use of the car by the insured owner for his own social, domestic or pleasure purposes. Policy exh. R2 issued in respect of the car does not cover the risk of any of the injured claimants who were the occupants of the car or the risk of the deceased Venkatesh who was driving the car and it has been held by the Tribunal that the present appellants cannot be considered as the third party within the meaning of the third party risk covered by the policy. Whenever the persons involved in the accident are not connected with the insured such as pedestrians, passengers in a vehicle (not a passenger in a goods vehicle) any person who is not in the vehicle which involved in the accident are to be considered as third parties. In the present case, as the injured passengers and deceased Venkatesh were all the occupants of the same car involved in the accident, they cannot be considered as third parties and their risk is not covered by the policy Exh. R2 issued in respect of the said car. Hence, the Tribunal has held issue No. 5 raised in the M. V. C. cases filed by the claimants that respondent Nos. 1 and 2, viz. , owner of the car and the insurance company are not liable to pay any compensation to any of the claimants in all the cases and answered issue no. 5 in the negative and dismissed the claim petitions for compensation.