UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. PATRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. It is contended by the learned counsel that the passengers were travelling in the vehicle for hire or reward while the vehicle was insured for private purposes and therefore the Insurance Company is not liable. Suffice it to say that the learned trial court while appreciating the evidence of the parties has come to the conclusion that the claimants have clearly established that the victims were gratuitous passengers and since the vehicle belonged to their relation they did not pay any fare. Likewise the earned Tribunal has given right and cogent reasons for not believing the evidence of the insurer in this regard. I do not find any error in this finding of the learned Tribunal recorded on issues Nos. 5 and 6.

(2.) The next contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the assessment of compensation made by the learned Tribunal is wrong inasmuch as while deciding issue No. 2 the learned Tribunal has accepted the income of the deceased to be Rs. 3000/- per month and has assessed the dependency of Rs. 2250/- per month which is not established on record. Suffice it to say that I need not go into the merits of the contention as in view of the judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court reported in British India General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Captain Itbar Singh, 1958-65 ACJ-1 and Narendra Kumar and Anr. v. Yarenissa and Ors., 1998 ACJ-244, this question not open to be assailed in appeal by the insurance company. Similar view is been taken by me in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Sukali S.B.,Civil Misc. Appeal No. 287/99 decided on 9.1.2001.

(3.) In this view of the matter the appeal is bereft of any merit and is hereby dismissed summarily. Appeal Dismissed