NAZEEMA Vs. SEBASTIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants are the widow and children of late Shri Abdul Khader, who died as a result of an accident on 25-11-1978 involving a goods vehicle, KLO 2607. The vehicle was owned by the second respondent. At the time of the accident the vehicle was being driven by the first respondent. The third respondent is the insurer. At the time of his death, late Shri Abdul Khader was aged 28 years, and the appellants were depending entirely on him for sustenance. The loss suffered by his death was assessed by them as Rs. 3,00,000/-, and a further amount of Rs. 10,000/- was claimed for pain and suffering of the deceased.

(2.) The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam awarded an amount of Rs.40,000/- with interest at 6 percent from 25-5-1979, on the finding that the first respondent was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently, and that occasioned the accident and the consequent death of Shri Abdul Khader. It was, however, found that since the deceased was a passenger in the goods vehicle, the third respondent insurer was not liable. The first appellant was allowed to realise Rs. 10,000/- out of the amount of compensation, and the costs of the petition. The remaining amount of Rs. 30,000/- was directed to be deposited in a Nationalised Bank in equal shares in the names of the second and third appellants till they attain majority. The first appellant was, however, allowed to receive interest on the deposit till the 2nd and 3rd appellants attained majority. The appellants assail the award on two grounds. Firstly, that the insurer also should have been made liable for payment of compensation, and secondly that a higher amount should have been awarded as compensation.

(3.) Counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal went wrong in holding that a passenger in a goods vehicle is not liable to be compensated by the insurer since such liability is outside the purview of the terms of the contract of insurance. It is his submission that the Tribunal should have found that the only provision which applied to the claim of the appellants was S.95(2)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, which at the relevant time, required the insurer to cover the claims relating to accidents involving goods vehicle to the extent of Rs. 50,000/-. He submits that the deceased was, admittedly, employed in the loading of timber in the goods vehicle. On the date of the accident, the deceased was engaged in that work and the vehicle was returning after loading rubber trees. It is, therefore, submitted that he was an employee travelling in the goods vehicle and was therefore covered by the provisions of S.95(2)(a) of the Act.