BHAMABAI SHANKAR BARVE Vs. RANGANATH GANPAT BANKHELE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent. The appellants are the claimants in a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act of 1939").

(2.) The claim was made for compensation on account of the death of one Shankar Laxman Barve in a motor accident on 19 th August, 1983. The case made out by the appellant is that at the relevant time the deceased was travelling by goods truck. It is their case that the deceased entered into the truck at Chase Narudi alongwith the goods which were to be carried to Pune. The first respondent is the owner of the said truck and the second respondent is the driver of the truck. The third respondent is the Insurer of the said Truck. The Tribunal found that the driver of the truck was negligent. The Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.1,38,000/ with interest at the rate of Rs. 12% per annum. The learned member of the Tribunal by relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Mallawwa & others V/s. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 1999 ACJ 1 held that the risk of the passenger or a person who is travelling along with the goods is not covered by the policy.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the appellants placed reliance on a decision of learned Signal Judge of this Court in the case of Balasaheb Shamrao Salunkhe, Deceased through his legal heirs Lilavati B. Saunkhe & Ors V/s. Laxmibai Yashwant Jadhav & Ors [FA 420 of 1992] decided on 28 th August, 2009. He placed reliance on a decision of the Division Bench in the case of Nasibdar Suba Fakir V/s. Adhia & Company & Others, 1983 MhLJ 647. He submitted that the view taken by the Division Bench is that when a hirer of a goods vehicle hired for carriage of his goods is travelling by the said vehicle in connection with the carriage of the goods with the consent of the driver or owner of the goods vehicle in question, he must be deemed to be a passenger whose risk is required to be covered under the policy of insurance. He submitted that in view of the law laid down by the Division Bench which is followed by this Court, the Tribunal has erred by dismissing the claim against third respondent insurer.