Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 67 (HP)

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Belil Ram

2015-01-09

MANSOOR AHMED MIR

body2015
JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmed Mir, J. 1. These appeals are outcome of one accident which was allegedly caused by the driver of Mahindra Camper bearing registration No. HP-66-0709, namely, Tej Singh near Garsa on 11.7.2005, wherein the claimant suffered injuries, constraining the claimant to file claim petition before the Tribunal. 2. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kullu, H.P., hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal", in Cl. Pet No. 52/05 decided on 30.3.2007 titled Beli Ram v. Tej Singh and others, after scanning the evidence and record, awarded the compensation in favour of the claimant, fastened the insurance company with the liability to pay the compensation with right of recovery from the owner, made the judgment and award, for short "the impugned award". 3. The insurer, by the medium of FAO No.238 of 2007 has questioned the impugned award, so far it relates to saddling it with the liability with right to recovery from the owner. 4. The claimant has filed FAO No. 241/2007, for enhancement of compensation. 5. The owner has not questioned the impugned award thus, it has attained finality so far it relates to him. The only question to be determined in FAO No. 238 of 2007 is whether the insurer has rightly been held liable to pay the compensation with right of recovery from the owner. It is profitable here to reproduce paras 23 to 26 of the impugned award: "23. I have closely scrutinised the evidence led by the parties and from the close scrutiny of the evidence, it can be safely held that the petitioner was travelling as a gratuitous passenger at the time of the accident as no cogent evidence has been led by the owner of the vehicle to show that at the time of accident the petitioner was sitting in the vehicle for loading/unloading the engine. Even the driver did not appear in the witness box in support of the case of the owner. 24. The law with regard to the liability of the insurance company in respect of the passengers being carried in a goods vehicle is now well settled. In Asha Rani, 2003 ACJ 1 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly held that the insurance company is not liable for payment of any compensation for death of a gratuitous passenger travelling in a goods vehicle. In Asha Rani, 2003 ACJ 1 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly held that the insurance company is not liable for payment of any compensation for death of a gratuitous passenger travelling in a goods vehicle. Asha Rani 2003 ACJ 1 (SC), was followed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Devireddy Konda Reddy, 2003 SCJ 468 (SC) and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ajit Kumar, 2003 ACJ 1931 (SC). 25. The question again came up for consideration before a three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Baljit Kaur, 2004 ACJ 428 (SC), wherein the impact of the amendment to the Motor Vehicles Act made in 1994 was considered and it was held by the Hon'ble apex Court that after the amendment of 1994, the Insurance Company was bound to cover liability with respect to owner of the goods or his authorised representatives and it was further held that no passenger can be carried in a goods vehicle and the Insurance Company was not liable to pay compensation with respect to passenger especially gratuitous passengers. 26. Therefore, in view of the law laid down as aforesaid since the petitioner was travelling as a gratuitous passenger at the time of accident, the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner. Hence, the issue is held in favour of respondent No.3." 6. I have gone through the impugned award. The claimant was the third party thus, the Tribunal has rightly fastened the liability with the insurer with right of recovery. 7. The question to be determined in FAO No. 241 of 2007 is whether the compensation awarded is just and appropriate. The Tribunal has rightly made the assessment, calls for no interference. 8. Having said so, both the appeals merit dismissal and are dismissed as such, along with pending applications, if any. Send down the records forthwith, after placing a copy of judgment. Appeal dismissed.