Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 703 (AP)

Pinninti Sanyasi v. Cheekati Sreeramulu

2004-07-16

C.Y.SOMAYAJULU

body2004
( 1 ) APPELLANTS, who are the parents of pinninti Satyanarayana (the deceased) who died due to the first respondent s rash and negligent driving of the lorry belonging to the second respondent and insured with the third respondent, filed a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs. one lakh from the respondent, and examined the first appellant as P. W. 1 and marked Exs. A-1 to a-4. First respondent chose to remain ex parte. Respondents 2 and 3 contested the claim petition. Third respondent examined r. W. 1 and marked Ex. B-1. The Tribunal having held that the accident occurred due to the rash and, negligent driving of the first respondent, awarded Rs. 70,000/- as compensation to the appellants against respondents 1 and 2 only and exonerated the third respondent from its liability on the ground that the deceased was travelling as a passenger in a goods vehicle. Aggrieved by the Tribunal exonerating the third respondent from its liability, the claimants filed this appeal. ( 2 ) THE point for consideration is, whether the third respondent is liable to pay the compensation payable to the appellants? ( 3 ) POINT:- The contention of the learned counsel for appellants is that since the deceased was travelling in the lorry with his goods, the Tribunal was in error in exonerating the third respondent from its liability. ( 4 ) THE contention of the learned Counsel for the third respondent is that since the evidence on record clearly establishes that the deceased was travelling as a passenger in the lorry in contravention with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, the Act ) and the Andhra Pradesh Motor vehicles Rules, 1989 (for short, the Rules ) the Tribunal exonerating the third respondent from its liability cannot be questioned. ( 5 ) IN the claim petition, the appellants alleged that they boarded the lorry bearing no. ORK-6910 at Vizianagaram to go to parvathipuram to attend a function at their relatives house along with rice and vegetable bags. The evidence of the first appellant as p. W. 1 is that he, his wife and his children boarded the lorry at Vizianagaram to go to parvathipuram to attend a function, the deceased and his mother-in-law also accompanied him to Parvathipuram in that lorry, that they were carrying brinjals, bananas and rice along with them to the function and that he paid Rs. 30/- towards freight for luggage and Rs. 20/- to each of the members towards fare. ( 6 ) EX. A-1 F. I. R. issued in connection with the accident produced by the appellant shows that report regarding the accident was given by one P. Appala Naidu, stating that when he and 13 others were intending to go to raigadh to offer prayers at the temple of majji Gowrammathalli, the driver of the offending lorry offered to take them there and so all of them boarded the lorry, and that some of them sat in the cabin and others sat in the body of the lorry, which was carrying a load of casuarina poles and that that lorry after proceedings to some distance met with accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. ( 7 ) THE evidence of P. W. 1 read with ex. A-1 clearly shows that the offending lorry was being used as a stage carriage by its driver contrary to Sub-Rule (5) of Rule 252 of the Rules which reads: "no person for hire or reward can be carried in a goods vehicle unless a permit authorizing the use of vehicle for the purpose of carrying persons for hire or reward is there in accordance with the provisions of that permit. " sub-Rule (2) of Rule 252 of the Rules reads: "no person shall be carried in a goods vehicle upon the goods or otherwise in such a manner that such a person is in danger of falling from the vehicle and in no case shall any person be carried in a goods vehicle in such a manner that any part of his person when he is in sitting position is at a height exceeding 3 metres from the surface upon which the vehicle rests. " this apart as per Rule 252 of the Rules not more than seven persons in all including the driver and cleaner can be carried in a goods vehicle. Since the recitals in Ex. A-l show that 14 persons boarded the offending lorry in the cabin and body and since there is nothing on record to show that the offending lorry was having a permit to carry passengers it is clear that Rule 252 of the Rules is violated. Since the recitals in Ex. A-l show that 14 persons boarded the offending lorry in the cabin and body and since there is nothing on record to show that the offending lorry was having a permit to carry passengers it is clear that Rule 252 of the Rules is violated. ( 8 ) THE contention of the learned Counsel for appellants that since the deceased and the appellants were carrying a bag of rice and vegetables with them, it is clear that they are travelling with their goods in a goods vehicle and so, they are covered under the policy issued by the third respondent, cannot be accepted because Rule 252 of the Rules also lays down that no person other than the person connected to the conveyance of the goods shall travel in a goods vehicle "goods" is defined in Section 13 of the act as"goods do not include luggage or personal effects carried in a motor car or a trailer attached to a motor car or the personal luggage of passengers travelling in the vehicle. "this, when read with Rule 252 of the Rules, clearly shows that a person who engaged the goods vehicle for conveyance of his goods from one destination to another or his authority representative only can travel in a goods vehicle. The recitals in Ex. A-1 show that the offending lorry was transporting casuarina poles. So the owner of the casuarina poles or his representatives only can travel therein as per Rule 252 of the Rules. ( 9 ) THE case of the appellants is that they boarded the lorry with vegetables, bananas etc. , being carried with them to a function. The articles being carried by the appellants would be luggage but not goods within the meaning of the Act. A person who boards a goods vehicle in the midway of its destination, when it was carrying the goods of others, would only be a passenger, though he may be having some luggage with him. Vegetables etc. , allegedly being carried by the appellants need not be conveyed in a goods vehicle for the appellants to accompany them in a goods vehicle. So appellants cannot by any stretch of imagination be said to be travelers in the offending lorry while conveying their goods from one destination to another, to be covered by Section 197 of the Act. , allegedly being carried by the appellants need not be conveyed in a goods vehicle for the appellants to accompany them in a goods vehicle. So appellants cannot by any stretch of imagination be said to be travelers in the offending lorry while conveying their goods from one destination to another, to be covered by Section 197 of the Act. ( 10 ) THEREFORE, the Tribunal exonerating the third respondents from its liability cannot be found fault with and so I hold that the third respondent is not liable to pay the compensation pay able to the appellants. The point is answered accordingly. ( 11 ) IN view of my finding on the point for consideration, the Civil Miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. But, in the circumstances, without costs.