NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. ASTU RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals arise out of the same accident and have been filed by the insurer of the offending vehicle. The challenge is that the Tribunal has gone wrong in mulcting the liability upon the insurer of the offending vehicle despite the fact that there was no coverage in respect of the persons concerned, who were travelling in a goods carriage and suffered the consequences when the offending vehicle turned turtle because of the rash and negligent driving on the part of the 4th Respondent/owner-cum-driver.

(2.) The sequence of events is as given below : The light goods carriage bearing No.CG-17/ZB/0217 owned by the 4 th Respondent herein was being driven by himself on 05.05.2009, with several persons carried on the 'platform' of the vehicle. When the vehicle reached the place of occurrence, at about 6.15 pm, because of the rash and negligent driving by the 4th Respondent/owner-cum-driver, the vehicle turned turtle, causing serious injuries to the persons who were travelling as above. Because of the fatal injuries, a passenger by name, Smt. Jhitri Bai succumbed to the same, which was sought to be compensated by filing a claim petition by the husband and two sons. Similarly, in respect of the serious injuries sustained by the other Claimants, they had approached the Tribunal by filing separate claim petitions.

(3.) The claims were sought to be resisted by the Respondents before the Tribunal and in particular by the Appellant, who was insurer of the offending vehicle. It was contended that the policy issued by the Appellant-Insurance Company was only to cover the statutory risk in respect of the goods vehicle towards the third parties and that, it did not authorize or provide coverage to any passenger; particularly since the vehicle involved was a goods carriage, not intended to carry any passenger. It was also pointed out that the deceased/injured were not travelling in the goods vehicle in the capacity as the 'owner or representative of the goods' carried in the vehicle; nor were they employees of the insured; under which circumstance, no coverage was available under the policy in respect of such risk.