UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. A GOVINDAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) United India Insurance Co. Ltd., aggrieved by the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub-Court), Dharmapuri, has filed the above appeals. Since the question is one and the same in all these appeals, they are being disposed of by the following common order. The only contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant insurance company is that whether the awards passed by the Tribunal in all these cases are sustainable or not? Inasmuch as the lorry-goods vehicle involved in the accident was used as a transport vehicle which is in violation of the statutory provision as well as the insurance policy.

(2.) In order to find out an answer to the said question, I shall refer the brief facts which are required. It is the case of the appellant insurance company that on 8.12.89 while the respondents-claimants were going to attend a marriage at Nariyanapalli in a goods vehicle, namely, lorry DTT 2126, they sustained injuries due to capsizing of the lorry. It is their definite case that since the goods vehicle is intended to carry goods only and the claimants who used the said lorry to carry them to attend a marriage in a neighbouring village is in violation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and also the terms of policy. According to them, in such a circumstance, the insurance company need not indemnify the owner of the lorry; hence the award directing the insurance company to pay the compensation to the victims cannot be sustained. It is the definite case of the claimants that with the specific permission of the owner of the lorry, they travelled in the lorry along with their goods which were intended for the marriage and while proceeding there, due to negligence of the driver of the lorry, it capsized, thereby they sustained various injuries. In such a circumstance, according to them, the insurance company is liable to pay compensation as awarded by the Tribunal. Though the learned counsel appearing for the respondents has stated that the appeals are to be dismissed as per section 173 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 since the amount in dispute in the appeal is less than Rs. 10,000, in all these appeals the value is more than Rs. 10,000 hence there is no need to consider the said objection.

(3.) Now I shall consider the contention raised by the insurance company regarding its liability. Since the accident had occurred on 8.12.1989, the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 alone are applicable. Chapter XI of the Act deals with insurance of motor vehicles against third party risks. There is no dispute that the vehicle in question was covered with a valid insurance policy at the time of the accident. As per Exh. B - 1, the lorry was having a valid insurance for the period from 22.10.1989 to 21.10.1990. No doubt, as per the policy, the lorry was authorised to carry 10 tonnes of goods. By pointing out the statutory provision, it is stated that apart from the permitted goods, 6 workmen can travel along with the goods. Inasmuch as about 60 persons travelled as passengers in the lorry referred to above. Mr. N. Rajan, learned counsel appearing for the insurance company vehemently contended that irrespective of the injuries sustained by them, the insurance company need not pay any amount on the basis of the insurance policy. Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') speaks about requirements of policies and limits of liability which is as follows: "Section 147. Requirements of policies and limits of liability. (1) In order to comply with the requirements of this Chapter, a policy of insurance must be a policy which (a) is issued by a person who is an authorised insurer; and (b) insures the person or classes of persons specified in the policy to the extent specified in sub-section (2) (i) against any liability which may be incurred by him in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any person or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place; (ii) against the death of or bodily injury to any passenger of a public service vehicle caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place: Provided that a policy shall not be required (i) to cover liability in respect of the death, arising out of and in the course of his employment, of the employee of a person insured by the policy or in respect of bodily injury sustained by such an employee arising out of and in the course of his employment other than a liability arising under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923), in respect of the death of, or bodily injury to, any such employee (a) engaged in driving the vehicle, or (b) if it is a public service vehicle engaged as a conductor of the vehicle or in examining tickets on the vehicle, or (c) if it is a goods carriage, being carried in the vehicle, or (ii) to cover any contractual liability. Explanation. For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the death of or bodily injury to any person or damage to any property of a third party shall be deemed to have been caused by or to have arisen out of the use of a vehicle in a public place notwithstanding that the person who is dead or injured or the property which is damaged was not in a public place at the time of accident, if the act or omission which led to the accident occurred in a public place. (2) Subject to the proviso to subsection (1), a policy of insurance referred to in sub-section (1), shall cover any liability incurred in respect of any accident, up to the following limits, namely: (a) save as provided in clause (b), the amount of liability incurred; (b) in respect of damage to any property of third party, a limit of rupees six thousand: Provided that any policy of insurance issued with any limited liability and in force, immediately before the commencement of this Act, shall continue to be effective for a period of four months after such commencement or till the date of expiry of such policy whichever is earlier.