UNITED INDIA INSUANCE CO LTD Vs. GOURI RAJUBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these appeals arise out of a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 22-5-1988 at KM stone No.362/6 on Hyderabad to Nagpur road on National Highway No.7 (at Sadasivnagar). Several persons were injured and several persons were died due to the said accident. Therefore, the injured persons and the legal representatives of the deceased filed claim petitions before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Nizamabad under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act against the owner of the lorry and the Insurance Company with which lorry was insured. After enquiry the Tribunal passed common award dated 13-4-1993 in OPNos.163, 164, 187, 188, 192, 256, 257 and 261 of 1998. Aggrieved by the award, the owner of the lorry i.e., M/s. Southern Roadways, represented by its Manager, Vijayawada in OP Nos.261, 192, 187, 256, 257, 164 and 163 of 1988 preferred CMANos.269, 380, 382, 377, 379, 384 and 383 of 1994, and the Insurance Company in OP Nos.261, 256, 164, 163, 257 and 192 of 1988 preferred CM A Nos.1662/93, 1711/93, 1731/93, 173093, 11/94 and 1733/93. As common questions of law and facts involved in all these appeals, I am disposing them of by this common judgment.

(2.) The brief facts of the cases are that the lorry bearing No. ABK. 2956 belonging to the first respondent which was insured with the second respondent Insurance Company met with an accident at about 5.40 p.m. on 22-5-1988 in the limits of Sadasivnagar at KM stone No.362/6 of Hyderabad to Nagpur road on NH 7. At that time Chakali Rajubai, Chakali Buchanna, Chakali Pochamma, Chakali Rajanna, Chinna Gangaram, Chakali Lambadri, Gouri Gangaram were travelling in the said lorry. According to them, they were taken as coolies by the driver. It is the further case of the petitioners that after boarding the above said persons, the driver of the lorry drove the vehicle with high speed and in rash and negligent manner which resulted in accident in which six persons were died and two persons were sustained injuries.

(3.) The first respondent-owner of the vehicle filed separate counters denying the allegations made in the petitions and stated that they never employed the deceased and the injured as labourers, and the deceased and 22 others forcibly entered the cabin of the lorry inspite of the objection and resistance by the driver. Though the driver of the lorry drove the vehicle cautiously there was lot of disturbance and commotion in the cabin of the lorry which caused obstruction to the driver and all of a sudden one tourist bus came from opposite direction and was about to dash against the lorry and to avoid accident, the driver of the accident vehicle turned it towards left side but the lorry hit against a tree which resulted in accident. The driver is not authorised to take the passengers in the lorry and the act of the driver in taking them in the cabin are unauthorised passengers, as such the owner is not liable to pay the compensation. Even if the Court comes to the conclusion that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry and the claimants are entitled to compensation, it is for the second respondent-Insurance Company which liable to pay the compensation.