UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. P SEETHAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant Insurance Company is assailing the legality of the award passed by the tribunal below raising substantial question of law based on endorsement No. 14(a) attached to the policy, namely, that the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation to a person unauthorisedly travelling in the vehicle unless it is covered by the contract as per the endorsement and permium paid. The endorsement reads Ss follows:

(2.) In order to appreciate the contention it is necessary to see the legislative interdment adumbrated under section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (4 of 1939), for short, "the Act". Section 95(2)(a) is relevant for the purpose of this case which reads as follows:

(3.) In Motor Owners Insurance Co., Ltd', v. J.K.Modi, (1981)4 S.C.C.660 (1981) A.C.J.507 22 G.L.R.1208= (1981)7 A.L.R. 620- 52 Comp. Case 454= A.I.R.1982 S.C.2059 their Lordships of the Supreme Court have interpreted the clause "any one accident" in sub-section (2)(a) of section 95 of the Act and held that if more than one person is injured in the course of the same transaction, each one has met with an accident and each is entitled to total compensation limited by the statute. In this case the lower Tribunal has founded as a fact that the deceased is the owner of the goods and his goods are being carried in the lorry AAC 1995 belonging to the first respondent. It was driven by the second respondent, driver. They were transporting tomatoes belonging to the deceased. The deceased was permitted to travel in the lorry. While he was travelling, due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver, the accident had occurred as a result of which the deceased, D.Lakshminarayana Reddi died on the spot. The respondents laid the claim in a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The Tribunal below found as a fact that the monthly dependence is Rs.750/- and the annaul dependence comes to Rs.9,000/-. The total dependence to which the respondents are entitled to is Rs. 1,26,000/- as tabulated in the Bench Judgment of this Court in Chairman, A.P. S.R.T.C. Hyderabad v. Shafiya Khatoon, A.I.R.1985 A.P.83. The Tribunal Limited the liability to Rs. 50,000/- in terms of sub-section (2)(a) of section 95 of the Act. Section 95(2)(a) of the Act permits the owner to carry passengers upto six and if the accident occurs to any one of the six persons permitted under the statute and any one of the persons in the vehicle receives injury or dies, then the owner becomes liable to pay compensation either to the injured or to the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be. The question raised in this case is that in terms of the contract the liability should be fastened only to the extent of Rs. 10,000/-. The question therefore is whether the Insurnace Company can contract out of the Statute and permit the liability to the extent of Rs. 10,000/- only when the statute limited it to Rs.50,000/- if the deceased-owner of the goods is travelling in a goods carriage with the permission of the owner. It is found as a fact and I do not find any reason to disagree with the tribunal below that the deceased is the owner of the goods booked and was permitted to travel in the vehicle and the death resulted as a result of rash and negligent driving of the driver, the second respondent. In M.Suryanarayana v. G.Satyavathi, (1979)1 A.L.T.381 at 395 it was held that a servant of the owner of the goods also is entitled to compensation. Much more so, in the case of the owner of the goods himself met with the death. If it were a case where the deceased is a more passenger for hire and was permitted by the driver without authority may be as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant Sri I.A.Naidu, that there may be justification that under the enjoyment No. 14(a) attached to the policy needs payment of a separate premium and the liability springs from contract of policy. But when the statute permits the owner of the goods to travel in the vehicle and the accident occurs, the liability springs under section 95(2)(a) of the Act, but not under the contract of policy. As a result, the appellant Company is liable to pay upto the maximum compensation of Rs.50,000/- and I do not find any illegality committed by the tribunal below in awarding this maximum compensation.