Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Rajendra Singh

Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.—Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent under Order 41, rule 11, Civil Procedure Code.

This miscellaneous appeal has been filed by United India Insurance Co. Ltd. against the judgment dated 17.3.2004 and the award dated 22.3.2004 passed by the learned Third Additional District Judge-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Muzaffarpur in Claim Case No. 44 of 2002 whereby the learned Tribunal directed the appellant insurance company to pay compensation of Rs. 1,72,000 with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum to the applicants.

The facts in short are that the claimants claim Rs. 4,30,000 as compensation because of death of Rakesh Ranjan on account of motor accident. It is stated that Mukesh Singh was driving motor cycle bearing registration No. BR 9-B 1618. Because of rash and negligent driving by Mukesh Singh, the motor cycle dashed against a rickshaw as a result of which the rickshaw and the motor cycle turned turtle. Rakesh Ranjan, the pillion rider, died on the spot. At the time of accident, the motor cycle was insured with the appellant insurance company. The deceased was aged about 22 years.

The owner who was O.P. No. 1 neither appeared nor filed any W.S. in the court below.

The appellant insurance company who was O.P. No. 2 appeared and filed the contesting written statement. Besides taking various legal pleas, the insurance company also contended that it is not liable to pay the compensation.

After hearing the parties, the learned Tribunal held that motor cycle in question was insured with the appellant, therefore, the insurance company is liable to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants.

The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation regarding the deceased who was a pillion rider because the policy was statutory policy and did not cover the risk of death to a gratuitous passenger. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied upon a decision reported in The General Manager, United Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M. Laxmi and Others,

It appears that in the case before Hon''ble Apex Court, as referred to above, also the owner did not appear. In that case also, the deceased was a pillion rider.

In the present case, admittedly, the insurance policy is a statutory policy and, therefore, it does not cover a pillion rider and gratuitous passengers.

The Hon''ble Supreme Court referring to the decision of the earlier decision reported in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Asha Rani and Others, and United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Shimla Vs. Tilak Singh and Others, has held that insurance company owed no liability towards the injuries suffered by the pillion rider as the insurance policy was a statutory policy.

In the present case, it is admitted fact that the deceased was a pillion rider and the insurance company issued the policy covering third party risk only. At best, the pillion rider could be said to be a gratuitous passenger and, as has been held by the Hon''ble Supreme Court, although the observations made in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Asha Rani and Others, where in connection with carrying passengers in a goods vehicle, the same would apply with equal force to gratuitous passengers in any other vehicle also.

In view of the above settled principles of law, laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court, I uphold the contention of the appellant insurance company that it has got no liability towards the death of Rakesh Ranjan who was a pillion rider only, as the insurance policy in this case also is a statutory policy and hence the said policy did not cover the risk of death of a pillion rider.

In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the order directing the appellant to pay compensation is unsustainable in the eyes of the law.

In the result, this appeal is allowed and the order directing the appellant to pay the compensation is set aside. The statutory amount deposited by the appellant before this court be returned to the appellant.