NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD Vs. AZIZ BAIG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent No. 3 in O. P. No. 10 of 1986 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District and Sessions Judge), Nalgonda, is the appellant herein. Two persons who were travelling in the lorry along with popcorn bags, six bags each, were involved in an accident on 14. 12. 1985. One person received injuries and he filed O. P. No. 9 of 1986 and a sum of Rs. 3,000/- has been awarded and no appeal has been filed against that order. With regard to the deceased person who was aged about 25 years and who died in the accident, the wife and children filed O. P. No. 10 of 1986 claiming Rs. 1,25,000/ -. So many witnesses were examined and documents were got marked. On considering the evidence, the learned Judge granted compensation of Rs. 52,760/- including the consortium, in all. The insurance company filed the present appeal. The main contention that has been raised by the learned Counsel for the insurance company is that the claimants are not entitled to any compensation from the insurance company as they are midway passengers. There is no rule or prohibition that the load cannot be booked in the midway. Suppose if the vehicle has been started at Hyderabad to unload the goods at the destination place, i. e. , Vizag, and in the midway if there is any thing or goods that can be accommodated they can be taken on the way also. So the question that the lorry driver has no right to take the goods on the midway has no force. When it is proceeding on the main road and if any space is available and the driver accepted the loading of things or goods on the midway, it cannot be said that unauthorised act has been committed by the driver without consent and permission of the lorry owner. In this case, admittedly the lorry was vacant to accommodate atleast six bags of popcorn each belonging to the persons concerned and the accident took place on the way. It must be said that the owner of the lorry that was involved in the accident, in the anxiety, may put up such pleas to avoid the payment of compensation. It cannot be said that they are not the owners of the goods and they are travelling as passengers. If they are travelling as passengers along with the goods the insurance company is liable to pay the amount. It relied upon the judgment reported in Meesala Suryanarayana v. Goli Satyavathi 1979 ACJ 513 (AP ). With regard to rash and negligent act the evidence that has been let in is amply justified by the lower court to arrive to that conclusion. So the grant of compensation is correct. In this case, the driver was not examined. He was set ex pane. If there is any violation of conditions by the driver, the insurance company is at liberty to proceed against the owner.

(2.) ACCORDINGLY the C. M. A. is dismissed. No costs.