KAREMANCHI RAMULU Vs. SHAIK KHAJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE point for consideration in all these appeals is whether the insurer is liable in regard to compensation to be awarded under Section 92 -A, Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as (M.V. Act, 1939') and if so, whether any defence is available to the insurer?

(2.) IN all these cases the injured or the deceased travelled in lorries, i.e., goods vehicles by paying fare. Those lorries were involved in accidents and these passengers sustained injuries and some of them succumbed to the same. In regard to the latter the legal representatives -cum -dependants filed the applications under Section 110 -A, Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation. The injured also filed similar applications. A Division Bench of this court (of which I am also a member) held in Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. M. Bhanumathi, 1990 ACJ 1043 (AP), that such passengers are not covered by Act policy and hence the insurance company is not under an obligation to pay the compensation. Hence it has to be held that these injured persons or the legal representatives of the deceased passengers are not entitled to the compensation fixed under Section 110 -B, M.V. Act, 1939.

(3.) SECTION 92 -A (1), M.V. Act, 1939 postulates that the owner or the owners of the vehicles are liable and the insurer was not referred to in any of the provisions in Chapter VII -A, M.V. Act, 1939. As per Section 93(ba) which is in Chapter VIII, liability in relation to death or bodily injury to any person includes liability in respect thereof under Section 92 -A Whether there is Act policy in regard to injured or deceased passenger in a goods vehicle, the same has to be considered in the light of Section 95(1)(b) of the Act. If such passengers are not covered by Act policy, the insurer cannot be held liable. The insurer can also contend that it may be absolved from the liability if any of the defences under Section 96 is open to it in the circumstances of the case. It was so urged for the insurer.