Case Note & Summary
The case involves two appeals filed by the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The accident occurred on 8th September 1985 when a truck (No. MHV5936) carrying steel plates turned turtle, resulting in the death of two persons, Vithal and Kondiram, who were traveling as passengers. The deceased had boarded the truck at different points and had paid fare to the driver. The owner and driver did not contest the claim. The Tribunal held the insurer liable. The insurer appealed, arguing that the policy did not cover passengers in a goods vehicle. The court examined Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, which requires a policy to cover liability for death or bodily injury to persons carried in the vehicle only if they are employees of the owner. Since the deceased were not employees and were traveling as gratuitous passengers, the insurer was not liable. The court allowed the appeals and set aside the award against the insurer.
Headnote
A) Motor Vehicles Act - Insurance - Gratuitous Passengers - Section 95 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 - The court considered whether the insurer is liable for death of persons traveling in a goods vehicle as gratuitous passengers. The deceased were not employees of the owner and were traveling for their own purposes. The policy covered only third-party risks and did not cover passengers carried for hire or reward. Held that the insurer is not liable to pay compensation for death of gratuitous passengers in a goods vehicle (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the insurer is liable to indemnify the owner of a goods vehicle for the death of persons who were traveling as gratuitous passengers in the vehicle at the time of the accident, given the terms of the insurance policy and Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.
Final Decision
The appeals are allowed. The award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal insofar as it holds the appellant insurer liable is set aside. The insurer is not liable to pay compensation for the death of the deceased who were gratuitous passengers in a goods vehicle.
Law Points
- Interpretation of Section 95 of Motor Vehicles Act
- 1939
- Gratuitous passengers in goods vehicle
- Insurer's liability
- Third party risks
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (03) 81
First Appeal No. 364 of 1997 and First Appeal No. 365 of 1997
Shri S.R. Singh for the Appellant, Shri Ashutosh Gole i/by Shri R.S. Apte for Respondent No.1, Shri Mendon appointed to assist the Court
The United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Sindhubai wife of Kondiram Darwante, Gopaldas son of Kanhyalal Bhagat, Mangusingh son of Fulsingh Rathod (in FA 364/1997); Kalabai W/o. Vithal Lahane, Gopaldas son of Kanhiyalal Bhagat, Mangusingh son of Fulsingh Rathod (in FA 365/1997)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Appeals against award of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in claim petitions for death in motor accident.
Remedy Sought
The appellant insurance company sought to set aside the Tribunal's award holding it liable to pay compensation.
Filing Reason
The insurer contended that the deceased were gratuitous passengers in a goods vehicle and not covered under the insurance policy.
Previous Decisions
The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal had awarded compensation to the claimants and held the insurer liable.
Issues
Whether the insurer is liable for death of persons traveling as gratuitous passengers in a goods vehicle under Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.
Submissions/Arguments
The appellant argued that the policy did not cover passengers in a goods vehicle and that under Section 95, only employees of the owner are covered.
The respondents argued that the deceased had paid fare and were thus passengers for hire or reward, but the court noted that the policy did not cover such passengers.
Ratio Decidendi
Under Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, an insurance policy for a goods vehicle is not required to cover liability for death or bodily injury to persons carried in the vehicle unless they are employees of the owner. The deceased were not employees and were traveling as gratuitous passengers, hence the insurer is not liable.
Judgment Excerpts
The case made out in the Claim Petition is that they had paid fare charges to the 3rd Respondent...
The contest was made by the Appellant who was the insurer of the said truck.
Procedural History
Claim petitions were filed under Section 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The Tribunal awarded compensation and held the insurer liable. The insurer filed these appeals before the High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1939: Section 95, Section 110A
