SADA NIRMALA Vs. INDRAPAUL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nizamabad, in O.P, No.679 of 1988 dated 10-10-1990 is in challenge. The appellants being the claimants viz., wife and children of one Sada Bhaskar, who died in a motor vehicle accident, which occurred on 22-5-1983 while the deceased was travelling as a pillion rider on the motor-cycle bearing No.APJ 8689 whose rider was respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 is the Insurer. During the enquiry, the Tribunal found that the accident was due to the negligence of respondent No.1. While awarding the compensation of Rs.25,000/- as against respondent No.1, the Tribunal held that respondent No.2-Insurer is not liable to indemnify respondent No1 in paying the amount under the award, Aggrieved by that, the appeal is filed.

(2.) The unassailed finding of the Tribunal is that the deceased travelled on the motor-cycle at the behest of respondent No.1, while the rider was to attend a marriage. The Tribunal relying upon the three precedents viz., New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Kuppuswamy Naidu and others (1988 ACJ 774), Surjit Singh and another vs. Santhos Kumari and others (1989 ACJ 466) and K. Yelunni and others vs. Premalatha and others (1989 ACJ 833), came to the conclusion that neither in the terms of the policy Ex.B-1 nor in law the deceased was covered by the risk to have the benefit of Insurer indemnifying the rider or the owner of the vehicle in paying the compensation. None appeared for the claimants. However, the respondent No.1 has filed cross-objections challenging the finding of the Tribunal regarding the liability fastened only on the owner of the vehicle and not against the Insurer.

(3.) Mr. A.T.R. Gokul appearing on behalf of Mr. K.G.K. Prasad, learned Advocate for respondent No.1, has contended that the Tribunal was wrong in fastening the liability only on respondent No.1 and not against the Insurer in view of the fact that the deceased was to go with respondent No.1 at his instance and not voluntarily. It is also his contention that the deceased should be taken to have been travelling on the vehicle in the course of the employment under respondent No.1 at the time of the accident. Mr. Kota Subba Rao, Advocate for Respondent No.2 has contended that as per settled law the Insurer is not liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle or rider of the vehicle in regard to the death or injury to the pillion rider unless the terms of the policy covered such a risk. It is also his contention that even in regard to the rider of the vehicle no such liability is contemplated in law as against the Insurer as per the settled law.