CHRISTIAN WELFARE CENTRE Vs. SEBASTIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Three female employees of the Christian Welfare Centre, Malappuram, who were travelling in an Ambulance Van registered as KLM 1566 belonging to the centre were involved in an accident on 25-11-1981. One of them, Soumini, was a Health Assistant. She was aged 29 years at the time of the accident. She died as consequence of the injuries sustained by her. Her mother, two sisters, and a brother filed MAC No. 28 of 1982 claiming an amount of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation. The driver owner and insurer of the vehicle were the respondents. The applicants alleged that it was due to the rash and negligent manner in which the first respondent in the application drove the vehicle that the accident occurred. In the written statement, the respondents denied negligence on the part of the driver. They stated that the deceased was not a permanent employee and that the income and her prospects were highly exaggerated. The claimants examined three witnesses and produced seven documents, whereas the respondents examined the driver of the ill fated van and another person as RWs 1 and 2. The Tribunal found that the first appellant mother alone was the dependant and awarded an amount of Rs.10,800/- as compensation. The Tribunal also limited the liability of the insurer to Rs. 10,000/-. The first applicant has filed M. F. A. No. 490 of 1982 claiming enhancement in compensation, whereas the owner of the vehicle has filed MFA No. 2S6 of 1983 assailing the direction contained in the order and award limiting the liability of the insurer to Rs. 10,000/-only.

(2.) The husband and mother of Mary Sabastian, who also died in the same accident, filed MAC No. 139 of 1982, claiming an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 21,000/- and limited the liability of the insurer to Rs. 10,000/-. The owner and driver of the vehicle were required to pay the balance amount of Rs. 11,000/- with interest. The owner of the vehicle filed MFA No. 230 of 1983 mainly against the directions contained in the order and award limiting the liability of the insurer to Rs. 10,000/- only. The claimant in both appeals have sought enhancement of the amount of compensation, the former in an appeal and the latter in a cross objection. We beard these three appeals together, because the question which arise for consideration are the same and all the appeals related to the same accident.

(3.) We will first take up MFA Nos. 230 and 256 of 1983 filed by the insured of the ill fated vehicle KLM 1566. The insured was also the employer of the two deceased, in respect of whose death the claimants had filed MAC Nos. 139 of 1982 and 28 of 1982 respectively. The main contention urged by counsel appearing for the appellant insured was that the Tribunal went wrong in limiting the liability of the insurer for payment of compensation in each of the cases to Rs. 10,000/- only, He submitted, that the limit of the insurer's liability in respect of passengers applies only to "passengers for hire or reward" and not to other passengers. He submitted further, that to the two cases on hand, the deceased were not passengers for hire or reward. They were travelling in the vehicle owned by the insured-employer to discharge their obligations under the Health Service Scheme evolved by the employer. It is his case, that no fare of reward was charged from the deceased, and that they could only be treated, if at all, as passengers travelling in the vehicle pursuant to a contract of employment. Reliance was placed on the decisions in Sheikhpura Transport Co., v. N.I.T. Insurance Company, AIR 1971 SC 1624 , and Madras Motor and General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Balakrishnan, 1982 ACJ 460, for the proposition that only such passengers of insured vehicles as bad paid or were to pay hire or reward were within the comprehension of S.95(2)(b)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The argument of counsel is ingenious and quite attractive, but we find it difficult to accept the same.