NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. MANGILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed by the insurance company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred as 'the Act') being aggrieved by the award dated 11.12.2002 passed by the IVth Member, MACT, Indore in Claim Case No. 187/99 mulcting the liability on the appellant insurance company to pay compensation to the claimant Mangilal.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that on the date of incident i.e. 17.02.1999 claimant Mangilal was travelling on the tractor trolley insured with the appellant National Insurance Company Ltd. and which was rashly and negligently driven by respondent No. 2 Omprakash, the tractor trolley toppled down and resulted in grievous injuries to Mangilal. The tractor trolley was owned by Bhuansingh respondent No. 3. The claimant preferred a claim before the learned MACT seeking compensation on various grounds from the appellant as well as respondents No. 2 and 3. The claim was resisted by the insurance company on the ground that Mangilal was an unauthorized passenger on the said vehicle and therefore, due to the conditions of violation of policy, the appellant insurance company was not liable to pay the compensation. The learned Tribunal however, framed the issues and on recording the evidence, awarded a sum of Rs. 20,000/- to the claimant holding the respondents jointly and severally liable to pay the same with 9% interest per annum from date of application. The Insurance Company also filed review before the Tribunal; stating that it had erred in mulcting the liability on the Insurance Company since there were several cases by the Apex Court to the contrary like New India Assurance Company v. Asha Rani and Ors., 2003 ACJ 1 which have not been considered. The review was also dismissed by the Tribunal and hence the present appeal by the appellant insurance company.

(3.) Counsel for the appellant insurance company has vehemently stressed the fact that the tractor trolley belonging to respondent No. 3 Bhuansingh was not covered for passenger risk and therefore, no liability could be fastened on the appellant. He urged that the claimant Mangilal was going to a wedding and was being carried to the tractor trolley and his risk was not covered under the policy since like gratuitous passengers being carried in the goods vehicle are not covered by the policy, in a similar manner it was the condition of breach of the policy and the negligence was of the driver of the vehicle alone, the company was not liable. He urged that the award was against the settled principles of law and evidence adduced by the appellant. Counsel also stated that the review of the appellant insurance company was also dismissed by the Tribunal and hence both the judgments in review as well as the claim case be set aside.