Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1037 (JHR)

Ashok Kumar Singh v. Patrik Karketta

2008-08-29

JAYA ROY, M.Y.EQBAL

body2008
Order Heard the counsel for the appellant. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.8.2007 passed by Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Latehar in M.V. Claim Case No. 21/2005 whereby the Tribunal held the appellant liable to pay compensation and not the Insurance Company. 3. The admitted facts are that the deceased alongwith many other persons was traveling in a truck which was fully loaded with boulders. The Insurance Company took defence that since the deceased was traveling in a goods carrying vehicle the Insurance Company has no liability. The Tribunal, on these facts,• has record a finding that the amount of compensation is payable by the owner of the vehicle inasmuch as the Insurance Company has no liability in respect of death or bodily injury caused to a person traveling in a goods carrying vehicle. Hence his appeal. 4. Mr. Arvind Kumar Lal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant assailed the impugned judgment and award as being erroneous in law. Learned counsel submitted that there has not been any willful violation of the terms of the policy contract by the appellant as because the deceased and other persons were forced to board the truck at the instance of the police of Garu Police Station. Learned counsel submitted that since the driver or the owner did not carry those persons including the deceased In violation of the insurance policy, the Insurance Company cannot disown its liability In this connection learned counsel relied upon a decision of the Uttranchal High Court in the case of Dayal Singh vs. Janki Devi [2007(1) TAC 366]. 5. As noticed above, the truck was loaded with stone boulders and 12-13 persons as labourers were already sitting on the truck. The deceased alongwith other persons boarded the truck which was carrying boulders. Neither the statute nor the condition of the policy permits the owner or the driver of the vehicle to allow any person other than the labourers in a goods carrying vehicle. Prima facie, therefore, there is statutory as well as contractual violation of the policy c0nditions. Even assuming that the police officer of Garu Police Station forced the deceased and other person to board the truck, on that ground the Insurance Company cannot be saddled with the liability for payment of compensation. In the case relied upon by Mr. Prima facie, therefore, there is statutory as well as contractual violation of the policy c0nditions. Even assuming that the police officer of Garu Police Station forced the deceased and other person to board the truck, on that ground the Insurance Company cannot be saddled with the liability for payment of compensation. In the case relied upon by Mr. Lal, the question which fell for consideration was as to whether driving a motor vehicle without any valid license and without the knowledge of the owner of the vehicle, can be held to be a willful violation. In our view, the principle laid down in the aforementioned case will not apply in the facts of the present case. 6. After giving our anxious consideration to the facts and the law discussed above, we find no error in the finding recorded by the Tribunal to the effect that' the Insurance Company has no liability in case of death or bodily injury to a person traveling in a goods carrying vehicle. This appeal has no merit which is, accordingly, dismissed.