DWARIKA Vs. BISO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appeal has been preferred by the owners of tractor trolley involved in a motor accident against whom the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has made an interim award u/s. 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for payment of Rs. 15,000/- to the claimants/respondents No.1 to 7 (the legal representatives of the deceased in the incident), but exonerating the insurance company, the respondent No.8 from payment on the ground that the deceased was travelling in the tractor at the time of the accident and being not a third party, the insurance company was not liable to compensate for the loss of the life.

(2.) It is not disputed that the deceased was travelling in the tractor at the time of the accident and that the tractor was insured with the insurance company, the respondent No.8. The learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent No.8 have cited a host of case law on the point as to whether an insurance company would be liable to pay compensation for loss occasioned by the death of a traveller in a goods vehicle. The learned counsel for the appellant relies on 1988 (3) SCC 1, Pushpabai Parshottam Udeshi v. Ranjit Ginning and Pressing Co. Pvt. Ltd. AIR 1977 SC 1735, Nirmal Kumar v. Brijlal 1987 Cur Civ LJ (SN) 35, Harishankar Tiwari v. Jugru 1987 Jab LJ 712 and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Shakuntala Bai 1987 MPLJ 719 to contend that the insurance company would be liable while the learned counsel for the respondent No.8 places reliance on a Full Bench pronouncement of this Court in Kallu Maharaj v. Meenabai 1989 Jab LJ 490, Shivlal v. Rukmabai 1987 Acc CJ 341, Bhanwarsingh v. Gatubai (1989) 2 ACC 35 (Madh Pra) and Santra Bai v. Prahlad 1985 Acc CJ 762 to contend that such a loss is not covered by the insurance company either under the policy or under the statute.

(3.) In the opinion of this Court, the core of controversy lies elsewhere and not at the point at which the learned counsel for parties have chosen to concentrate.