NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. DAYANAND MARGEPPA PEDDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The National Insurance Company Ltd. (for short Insurance "Company") has filed this appeal against the judgment and order dated 7.6.2004 rendered by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pune, (for short "the Tribunal") in claim petition No.515 of 1990. By the impugned judgment, the claim petition instituted by respondent no.1 claimant (for short "the claimant") has been allowed and the appellants and respondent no.2 have been directed to pay the total compensation of Rs.28,17,000/-, inclusive of interim compensation, to the claimant. While allowing the claim petition other consequential directions have also been issued by the tribunal.

(2.) The facts, sans unnecessary details, are as follows: the claimant, who was hardly 23-24 years old at the time of accident, was a resident of Latur. He was in transport business and was also working as commission agent at Latur. He was also dealing in salt business. At the relevant time he had gone to Mumbai in connection with his business. The offending vehicle i.e truck no.MTQ 9031 (for short "the truck") was attached to Kiran transport at Mumbai. On 18.2.1990, according to the claimant, he hired the truck for carrying paper/card-board boxes (for short "the goods") from Mumbai to Latur. He was also to load salt bags at Solapur for carrying them to Latur. The claimant was also travelling in the truck alongwith the goods. The truck was to go to Latur via Solapur. While the truck was near Lonavala, on Mumbai-Pune road, at about 4.30-5.00 am, according to the claimant, due to rash and negligent driving, it met with an accident. In the accident the claimant sustained serious injuries, and suffered 100% permanent disability.

(3.) The claimant, on 31.7.1990 filed a claim petition and prayed for compensation of Rs.7 Lacs from the Insurance company and respondent nos.2 and 3. Thereafter the claimant amended the petition on 22.8.2002 and enhanced his claim from Rs.7 Lacs to Rs.25 Lacs. The insurance company filed their written statement dated 24.8.1992/30.10.1992, and opposed the claim contending that the claimant was travelling in the truck as unauthorised/gratuitous passenger. It was further contended that under section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short "the Act of 1988"), prior to the 1994 amendment, the insured was not obligated to get his vehicle insured for any passenger like the claimant, and, therefore, the insurance company was not legally liable to pay any compensation to such person. In the alternative, the insurance company also contended that in case it is held that the claimant was travelling as "authorised non fare paying passenger" with his goods, he would be at the most entitled for compensation to the extent of Rs.20,000/-. After the amendment was carried out by the claimant the insurance company did not file additional written statement.