MANISH KUMAR Vs. BABU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the award of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, East Nimar (Khandwa) in Claim Case No. 21/95, dated December 23, 1996.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, accident took place on 3-1-1995 when Smt. Kusum Bai, Santosh and Babu were travelling along with their goods in Truck No. MPO 2217 from Village Dondwa. The truck met with accident resulting in the death of Smt. Kusum Bai and injuries to others. Three Claim Petitions are filed claiming compensation for the death of Smt. Kusum Bai and injuries to other claimants. Allegation is that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the truck by driver Kishan Singh owned by Manish Kumar and insured with Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Defence is that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the truck. Accident occurred due to bursting of tyre and vehicle dashed against tree. Since the vehicle was insured with Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., liability to pay compensation was of the company. Insurance Company has accepted that the vehicle was insured with it. Further, it is stated that deceased was travelling as fare paying passenger, therefore, she was not covered by the Insurance Policy. The driver did not possess valid driving licence. Consequently, it is not liable to pay compensation.

(3.) COUNSEL for parties heard and record perused. M/s B.D. Jain and Sunil Jain Advocates submit that the award impugned by owner and driver through this appeal is sustainable because evidence clearly points out that the deceased was fare paying passenger. Further submission is that Babu has stated that the deceased was travelling with Santosh along with goods, which she got towards wages, while Santosh states that the deceased was travelling along with goods, paid for the goods and for travelling. Contention is that, deceased was a gratuitous passenger, therefore, Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation on behalf of the owner and the driver of the vehicle. The statement of Santosh seems to be contrary to the case set-up in the Claim Petition. The liability for payment of compensation of gratuitous passenger was not covered under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 nor is it covered under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. However, Apex Court in New India Assurance Company v. Satpal Singh and others, 2000(1) RCR(Civil) 274 (SC) : AIR 2000 SC 235 held that even a gratuitous passenger travelling in goods vehicle along with his goods is also covered under section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as amended by Act No. 54 of 1994 with effect from 14-11-1994. However, the Apex Court clarified the position with respect to cases of persons travelling in goods-vehicle along with their goods in the context of amendment to section 147 coming into force from 14-11-1994 in Ramesh Kumar v. National Insurance Company Ltd., 2001(4) RCR(Civil) 680 (SC) : 2001(6) SCC 713 and held that under section 147(1)(b)(1)(i) as amended by Act No. 54 of 1994, liability of Insurance Company to pay compensation exists to cases of death or bodily injury to owner of goods or his authorised representative travelling in a goods carriage. This means the person travelling in goods-vehicle along with his goods after 14-11-94 is covered by the insurance policy. Therefore, Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation in the event of bodily injury or death irrespective of the fact whether he has paid some amount for travelling by that vehicle in addition to the charges for carriage of goods. Therefore, much cannot be read from the statement of Santosh since in view of the legal position existing, the present case is covered and liability to pay compensation is of the Insurance Company since the accident occurred on 3-1- 1995, obviously after 14-11-1994. The judgment reported in Shanker Prasad v. Malti Devi, 1998(1) MPLJ 89 : AIR 1998 MP Page 88 has no application.