NETRAPAL SINGH Vs. BHAGWATI PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal filed under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the award dated 10-2-1982, passed by Shri V.D. Bajpai, Accident Claims Tribunal, Seoni in Claim Case No. 32 of 1980 making the appellant alone liable to pay the compensation.

(2.) THE respondent No. 1 claiming to have suffered an accident and injury during the same on 26th April, 1980 filed a claim before the Claims Tribunal alleging that the injuries suffered by him were because of the rash and negligent driving of Truck No. MPQ 3587 owned by the appellant and driven by the respondent No. 2. The said truck is admittedly insured with respondent No. 3. It was alleged that the respondent No. 1 had hired the truck for transporting his Mahua and was accompanying the said goods from Seoni. The truck turned turned at Silua Ghati and dashed against a tree. The respondent No. 1 admittedly received injuries in the aforesaid accident. The accident was reported to the police and respondent No. 2 was prosecuted for offence under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant denied that the accident resulted because of rash and negligent driving. It was his case that there was a sudden failure of brake as a result of which the vehicle left the road and dashed against the tree. The learned Claims Tribunal, analysing the oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident was as a result of rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 2. The Tribunal accordingly held the appellant vicariously liable to compensate the respondent No. 1. The Tribunal, however, held that since the respondent No. 1 was being carried in the truck as a passenger, the Insurance Company was not liable to indemnify, as the insurance policy does not cover the use of the conveyance for hire or reward. The appellant in the present appeal is only challenging the finding in regard to the liability of Insurance Company and is not challenging either the finding regarding rash and negligent driving or his liability to pay the compensation to respondent No. 1.

(3.) THERE is yet another reason why the insurance company should be held liable. Rule 111 of M.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1974 permits carrying the hirer or the owner of goods in the vehicle under specified circumstances. There is evidence on record to hold that the respondent No. 1 was travelling in the truck because he had hired the same to carry Mahua. Evidence of Moti Singh (P.W.2) would indicate that the respondent No. 1 was travelling in the cabin by the side of the driver. It would, therefore, appear that the driver by the respondent No. 1 was not in contravention of any of the conditions under Rule 111 and was, therefore, legally permissible. Such a person must, therefore, be held to be covered by the insurance policy.