Case Note & Summary
The case involves a motor accident claim arising from an incident on 26.2.1995 when the claimant, Shashikant Chimurkar, hired a TATA407 truck (MH31/M3506) to transport pipes and allied material to his agricultural land and grain bags on return. The truck collided with a stationary truck, causing serious injuries to the claimant, including a fractured left leg and permanent disability of 35%. He incurred Rs. 90,000 in medical expenses. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur, awarded Rs. 1,70,000 with 6% interest, fixing 80% liability on the National Insurance Company and 20% on the owner of the offending vehicle. The Insurance Company appealed, arguing that the claimant failed to prove he was an agriculturist or owner of the goods due to lack of documentary evidence like 7/12 extracts. The claimant's counsel countered that evidence on record, including the nature of goods and the premium charged (Rs. 100 for non-fare paying passenger), indicated ownership. The court relied on the Supreme Court ruling in Rameshkumar v. National Insurance (2001 (3) TAC 639), which held that owners of goods travelling in a goods vehicle are covered under the insurance policy. The court found that the claimant's evidence, including his testimony and the fact that he hired the truck and loaded grain bags, sufficiently established his status as owner of goods. The appeal was dismissed, and the award was upheld.
Headnote
A) Motor Accident Compensation - Owner of Goods as Passenger - Section 147 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Insurance Liability - Claimant hired a truck for transporting pipes and grain bags and was injured in accident - Evidence showed he was owner of goods - Insurance company liable despite lack of 7/12 extract or documentary proof - Held that owner of goods travelling in goods vehicle is covered under policy (Paras 1-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the claimant, who was travelling in a goods vehicle as owner of goods, is entitled to compensation from the insurance company despite lack of documentary proof of ownership of goods?
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. Award of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur dated 2nd December 2003 in Claim Petition No. 30 of 1996 upheld.
Law Points
- Owner of goods travelling in goods vehicle is covered under insurance policy
- Insurance company cannot deny liability on ground of lack of documentary proof if evidence shows claimant was owner of goods
- Premium charged for non-fare paying passenger indicates coverage
