NASIBDAR SUBA FAKIR Vs. ADHIA AND COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question involved in this appeal is of quite some importance. It relates : (a) to the inter-action of the provisions of section 95(1)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereafter, the Act), and of Rule 118 of the Bombay Motor Vehicles Rules; (b) and their impact on the liability of the Insurance Company for the death or bodily injury to the hirer of a goods vehicle when he is a passenger in the same vehicle. The Accidents Claim Tribunal has taken the view that when a person hires a goods vehicle for transport of his goods and when he is a passenger on the vehicles, then the Insurance policy taken by the owner of the goods vehicle need not cover the loss caused to such passenger by virtue of the negligence of his driver and hence the Insurance Company is not liable to such passenger for payment of compensation to him. We are required to examine the correctness of this view.

(2.) The facts of the case are more or less admitted. When some of the facts are in dispute, we will indicate the nature of the dispute at the appropriate place. The facts are as follows :

(3.) Both respondents Nos. 1 and 2 denied the allegation of negligence on the part of their respective drivers. On these pleadings, issues were framed by the Tribunal and parties went to trial and led their evidence. The claimant examined himself as also the Police Officer who had made Panchanama of the accident. The panchanama was also got duly proved through the said officer. On behalf of respondent No. 1, the cleaner who was accompanying the driver of the truck B at the relevant time was examined. No evidence was led on behalf of respondent No. 2 Even the driver of truck A was not examined.