Case Note & Summary
The case arises from a motor accident on 15th April 1988 at Swargate, Pune, where the deceased Balkrishna was waiting with his luggage. The driver of a tempo (goods vehicle) offered to carry his articles, and the deceased loaded his luggage and travelled in the tempo. During the journey, a collision occurred between the tempo and a truck, resulting in fatal injuries to the deceased. The claimants (respondents 1 to 4) filed a claim petition under Section 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 against the owner and insurer of the tempo (appellant) and the owner and insurer of the truck. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal found both drivers negligent and apportioned liability equally between the owners of the two vehicles. The appellant, insurer of the tempo, contended that the deceased was travelling in a goods vehicle in breach of policy terms and that the policy did not cover such passengers. The Tribunal, relying on the Division Bench decision in Nasibdar Suba Fakir v. Adhia and Company (1983 ACJ 264), held that the liability for the owner of goods travelling in a goods vehicle is covered by the policy, and thus the appellant was liable. The appellant appealed, citing the Supreme Court decision in Mallawwa v. Oriental Insurance Company (1999(2) Bom.C.R. 515) to argue non-liability. The respondents relied on Oriental Insurance Company v. Gangavarapur Padmawati (1999(2) Mh.LJ 167). The High Court considered the submissions and noted that the case is governed by the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. It was admitted that the tempo was a goods vehicle and the deceased was travelling with his goods. The court held that the deceased was the owner of the goods and not a gratuitous passenger, and therefore the insurer's liability was covered. The court distinguished Mallawwa on facts, as in that case the deceased was a gratuitous passenger. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the impugned award was confirmed.
Headnote
A) Motor Vehicles Act - Goods Vehicle - Passenger Liability - Section 110A Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 - The insurer of a goods vehicle is liable to pay compensation for the death of the owner of goods travelling in the goods vehicle along with the goods, as such a person is not a gratuitous passenger and the liability is covered under the policy. The court relied on Nasibdar Suba Fakir v. Adhia and Company (1983 ACJ 264) and distinguished Mallawwa v. Oriental Insurance Company (1999(2) Bom.C.R. 515) on facts. (Paras 1-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the insurer of a goods vehicle is liable to pay compensation for the death of a person who was travelling in the goods vehicle as the owner of the goods being carried, under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is confirmed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Liability of insurer for owner of goods travelling in goods vehicle
- Section 110A Motor Vehicles Act 1939
- Goods vehicle passenger coverage
- Nasibdar Suba Fakir ratio
- Mallawwa v. Oriental Insurance distinguished
