ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO Vs. RAM LUTAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. R. Singh, J. Subject-matter of impugnment in the instant appeal is the award dated 31-1-1987 rendered by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in M. A. C. Case No. 23 of 1986 - Ram Avtar and another v. Ram Prakash and others, whereby the Claims Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 62,400 together with interest at the rate of 8% with effect from 6-5-1986, which is the date on which was the claim petition tiled, till the date of actual payment of the compensation to the claimants with a further direction that the entire amount of compensation would be payable by the appellant-Insu rance company.

(2.) FOR sensitive appreciation of the controversy involved in the case, necessary facts may be delineated. Claimants-respondents 1 and 2 are parents of the deceased Ashok Kumar who, has held by the Tribunal had got con cussed in the accident which occurred as a result of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle i. e. Truck No. UPC 3108 being driven on the fateful day by Pappu, 4th respondent who, as further held by the Tribunal, had a valid driving licence. Ram Prakash, respondent No. 3 is admittedly the owner of the Vehicle. The claim petition was filed by the parents of the deceased claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 2 lac as against which the Tribunal awarded only a sum of Rs 62,400. The finding that the accident took place as a result of actionable rash and negligent driving and the finding that the Driver had a valid driving licence were rightly not challenged by the counsel appearing for the appellant. The challenge has been telescoped to the only submission made by Sri A. B. Saran, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant that the appellant Insurance Company was not liable to pay the compensation beyond the statutory limit postulated by Section 95 (2) (h) of the Act. Sri R. P. Goyal, learned Counsel appearing for the claimants-res pondents canvassed that the Insurance Company was rightly fastened with the liability to pay the entire amount of compensation in that, urged the learned counsel, the policy was the comprehensive one, indemnifying the liability of the insured beyond statutory limits.

(3.) IN my opinion, therefore, the exception carved out in the second proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 95, would cover the owner of goods or his bona fide employee travelling in a goods vehicle taken on hire or for reward etc. It may be observed that the expression 'in pursuance of a con tract of employment' was construed by the Division Bench in Abdul Razzak's case (supra) to mean the contract of employment between the owner of the goods and his employee accompanying the goods in a goods vehicle taken on payment of hire or reward etc.