Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 1529 (RAJ)

Shri Fula Ram Jat v. Srimati Chandru Devi

2021-08-17

VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

body2021
JUDGMENT 1. Since all three appeals arise out of the common judgment and award dated 01/11/2000, the same are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. These appeals arise out of the judgment dated 01/11/2000 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajgarh (Churu) in Motor Accident Claims Case Nos. 27/1997, 45/1997 & 39/1997vide which the claim petitions of the claimant/respondents were allowed. 3. The Tribunal, after framing the issues, evaluating the evidence on record and hearing counsel for the parties, decided the claim petition of the claimant. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. The claim petitions were preferred by the claimants on account of an accident which occurred on 28/04/1997. The claimants and Ramswaroop boarded the insured vehicle TATA 407 RJ 10G0347 driven by Suresh Kumar. The vehicle was insured with the respondent Insurance Company as "goods vehicle" for which requisite premium was paid. Deceased Ram Swaroop as well as the injured claimants/respondents travelled in the goods vehicle as a 'fare pay passengers'. The Tribunal, after adjudicating issue No.2, came to the conclusion that the claimants, who boarded the vehicle were 'fare pay passengers' and were not supposed to travel in the same as the offending vehicle was a goods vehicle and, therefore, the Insurance Company was not liable to compensate the claimants for the accident which occurred on 28/04/1997 and, therefore, the finding on issue No.2 was decided against the appellant. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/owner of the vehicle assailed the findings recorded by the Tribunal vide its judgment dated 01/11/2000 on the ground that the liability to pay compensation cannot be fastened on the present appellant as the vehicle involved in the accident was insured with the respondent Insurance Company. The requisite premium for the same was duly paid and at the time of accident, it was within the currency of the insurance cover. Therefore, the Insurance Company cannot escape from the liability of paying the compensation in the present case. He further submits that the vehicle insured with the respondent company was being driven by the person who was having a valid driving licence and, therefore, there is no breach of the policy condition and it is the liability of the insurance company to pay the compensation. He submits that the finding arrived at by the Tribunal on issue No.2 is erroneous and, therefore, he prays for setting aside the same. 7. He submits that the finding arrived at by the Tribunal on issue No.2 is erroneous and, therefore, he prays for setting aside the same. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent Insurance Company and the claimants supported the findings recorded by the Tribunal vide its judgment dated 01/11/2000 on the ground that even as per the claimants/appellants, the factum of paying the fare price for travelling in the subject vehicle has come on record and, therefore, the finding on issue No.2 recorded by the Tribunal does not suffer from any infirmity. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that even as per the statements of the injured persons, it has come on record that they paid the amount for travelling in the subject vehicle from Dokawa to Rajgarh. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that the findings recorded by the Tribunal on issue No.2 are absolutely in-conformity with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Savitri Devi & Others, reported in (2013) 11 SCC 554 . 8. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and gone through the impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal as well as the record of the case. 9. The finding on issue No.2 recorded by the Tribunal to the effect that the offending vehicle was a goods vehicle is fortified from the fact that the Insurance Cover Note clearly shows that the vehicle was insured with the respondent/company for carrying the goods and, therefore, the claimants who boarded this vehicle were 'fare pay passengers'. It is also noted that as per the claim application as well as the statements of the claimants, it is apparent that the claimants have boarded the vehicle after paying the amount to the driver for travelling from Dokawa to Rajgarh, therefore, it has come on record that the subject vehicle was not insured with the Insurance Company for the purpose of carrying the passengers and, therefore, no liability of paying the compensation on account of the accident can be fastened with the Insurance Company. For the better appreciation of the facts, the findings recorded by the Tribunal on issue No.2 is reproduced as under :- 10. For the better appreciation of the facts, the findings recorded by the Tribunal on issue No.2 is reproduced as under :- 10. The finding of the fact recorded by the Tribunal is also correct and in conformity with the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Savitri Devi & Others (supra). Paras 8, 9 and 10 of the said judgment are reproduced as under :- "8. After having gone through the award of the Claims Tribunal and the judgment and Order passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court, we are not able to understand as to how it has been found that the Appellant-Insurance Company can still be held liable to pay the amount of compensation as there has been a categorical finding by both the Courts recording that the vehicle in question was insured only as "Goods carrying Vehicle". The custom of carrying barat in the village on the said truck will not be sufficient to hold the Appellant-Insurance Company liable to pay the amount of compensation. Admittedly, Appellant-Insurance Company would not know unless the accident takes place as to for what purpose the vehicle in question was being used. The terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy are very clear and categorical and it creates a specific bar on carrying of any passengers, except the employees other than the driver, not exceeding six (6) in number, who should also come under the purview of Workman's Compensation Act. 9. The specific case of the claimants was that the barat was being taken in the said open truck on 12.11.1996 when the accident had taken place. Thus, according to us, it clearly violates the terms and conditions of the policy. 10. Dealing with similar circumstance, this Court has held in "National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Bommithi Subbhayamma and others" (SCC p.246, paras 9-11) as under: "9.... 20. It is, therefore, manifest that in spite of the amendment of 1994, the effect of the provision contained in Section 147 with respect to persons other than the owner of the goods or his authorized representative remains the same. 20. It is, therefore, manifest that in spite of the amendment of 1994, the effect of the provision contained in Section 147 with respect to persons other than the owner of the goods or his authorized representative remains the same. Although the owner of the goods or his authorized representative would now be covered by the policy of insurance in respect of a goods vehicle, it was not the intention of the legislature to provide for the liability of the insurer with respect to passengers, especially gratuitous passengers, who were neither contemplated at the time the contract of insurance was entered into, nor was any premium paid to the extent of the benefit of insurance to such category of people." 11. In view of the discussions made above, the judgment of the Tribunal dated 01/11/2000 does not suffer from any infirmity. 12. The appeals are bereft of merit and the same are, hereby, dismissed.