UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. PHULMATA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are nine appeals filed by United India Insurance Co. Ltd. against the orders of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/ADJ Court No. 2, Bara- banki in Bitaula v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., M.A.C.P. No. 320 of 2003; Shanti Devi v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., M.A.C.P. No. 299 of 2003; Ram Kali v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., M.A.C.P. No. 338 of 2003; Phulmata v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., M.A.C.P. No. 359 of 2003; Shardhey v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., M.A.C.P. No. 346 of 2003; Ket- aki v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., M.A.C.P. No. 330 of 2003; Kamla Devi v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., M.A.C.P. No. 406 of 2003; Dhodhey v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., M.A.C.P. No. 337 of 2003; Sukhrani v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., M.A.C.P. No. 324 of 2003; all dated 25.5.2007.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that on 1.8.2003, at about 1 a.m. in village Bind- aura, Bindaura Canal Bridge, near Police Station, Masauli, District Barabanki truck No. UP 32-T 7694 loaded with morang sand turned turtle resulting in serious injuries to Maikoo, Jawahar, Radhey Shyam, Kunware, Pawan Kumar and Nankhoo, who were travelling in the truck as labourers for unloading of morang sand. All the aforesaid six persons were admitted in the hospital, but subsequently died. THE aforesaid claim petitions had been filed by heirs of the deceased. By the impugned order all the claim petitions have been allowed and compensation has been awarded to the heirs of the deceased.

(3.) MR. U.P.S. Kushwaha, at the very outset, submitted that the appellant had not obtained permission under section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and, therefore, is not in a position to challenge the orders of the Tribunal on merit mainly on the negligence of the driver and on quantum. However, he submitted that the appellant's case is covered under the clauses of sec- tion 149 (2) of the Act. Elaborating the argument, he submitted that in fact 30 passengers were boarded on the truck and in the accident 12 persons have died. He submitted that out of 12 persons, only 10 persons filed the claim petitions. The claim petitions of all the 10 persons have been allowed. Out of which, in case of 6 persons, namely, Maikoo, Jawahar, Radhey Shyam, Kunware, Pawan Kumar and Nankhoo, the insurance company has been held liable to pay the compensation treating them regular labourers for loading and unloading for the owner of the vehicle. In respect of four persons, though the compensation was awarded against the owner of the vehicle but the appellant has been directed to pay the amount to the claimants with the right to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. He submitted that the Tribunal has illegally arrived at the conclusion that six persons, namely, Maikoo, Jawahar, Radhey Shyam, Kunware, Pawan Kumar and Nankhoo were the regular labourers of the owner. He submitted that nowhere in the statement, the owner has stated that they were regular labourers. He submitted that the truck was goods carriage vehicle, therefore, the passengers travelling in such truck were illegal passengers travelling at their own risk and not covered by the insurance cover note/policy. Therefore, the insurance company cannot be held liable for compensation in case of death of such passengers. In support of the contention he relied upon the following decisions: (1) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Vedwati, 2007 ACJ 1043 (SC). (2) M.V. Jayadevappa v. Oriental Fire and Genl. Ins. Co. Ltd., 2005 ACJ 1801 (SC). (3) National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Bommithi Subbhayamma, 2005 ACJ 721 (SC). (4) National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kaushalaya Devi, 2008 ACJ 2144 (SC). (5) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Laxmi Narain, F.A.F.O. No. 2063 of 2008 (Allahabad). (6) National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Baljit Kaur, 2004 ACJ 428 (SC). (7) Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Meena Variyal, 2007 ACJ 1284 (SC). (8) National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Challa Bharathamma, 2004 ACJ 2094 (SC).