NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. BALAN ALIAS BALAKRIHSNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred by the National Insurance Company aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal making the Insurance Company liable for the compensation amount awarded. Claimant was travelling from Bombay to Kasaragode in a Maruti Omni and when it reached the place called Kumta in Karnataka State, it stopped for facilitating the passengers to take tea. Claimant alighted from the Maruti Omni. First respondent driver then took the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner in the reverse direction and hit the claimant, as a result of which he fell down and sustained injuries. Claimant was taken to Canera Health Centre, Kumta. He was treated there and later he was taken to a Nursing Home at Kasaragode and he was treated therein as inpatient from 04/06/1999 to 06/06/1999. Later he was taken to the Kumaran's Hospital, Coimbatore and treated there from 07/06/1999 to 27/06/1999. According to him, the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent. Second respondent was the owner of the vehicle and the vehicle was covered by a valid policy. A total amount of Rs.5 lakhs was claimed by the claimant. Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,20,600/-. Insurance Company is aggrieved by that part of the award making the Insurance Company liable, hence this appeal.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company expressed serious doubt about the accident itself. Further it is also stated that the claimant was a gratuitous passenger in a private vehicle and the vehicle was having an act only policy and the gratuitous passenger is not covered by that policy. Under such circumstance learned counsel submitted that the Insurance Company cannot be held liable. In support of his contention learned counsel placed reliance on a judgment of the Apex Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh, 2006 KHC 605 : 2006 (2) KLT 884 : AIR 2006 SC 1576 : JT 2006 (4) SC 280 : 2006 (2) SCC (Cri) 344 : 2006 (4) SCC 404.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the claimant on the other hand, contended that the accident had occurred in the manner stated by him. Further it was stated that it was due to the negligence of the first respondent driver, the accident had occurred and the Tribunal has rightly found that he was negligent. But no adequate compensation was granted and hence claimant has filed cross appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation. Learned counsel also submitted that the moment he alighted from the vehicle he ceased to be a passenger and hence the Insurance Company is bound to compensate the claimant.