Khandeshwar Reddy vs Raja Christian

Ravi V. Malimath, J.—Aggrieved by the judgment and award of the Tribunal, the claimant has filed this appeal, seeking enhancement and questioning the liability hoisted on the owner to satisfy the claim.

The case of the appellant/claimant is that on 28.09.2006, he was travelling in a jeep bearing No. CRJ 1229 from Gillasugur to Mudaldinni. At about 9.00 p.m., due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle, it turned turtle. The claimant who was in the jeep sustained injuries. He was treated in the hospital.

On a claim petition being filed u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 37,000/- along with interest. It absolved the insurer of satisfying the award, but directed the owner of the vehicle to satisfy the claim. Aggrieved by the same, the claimant has filed this appeal questioning the liability hoisted on the owner as well as seeking enhancement.

Learned counsel for the appellant contends that in terms of the insurance policy-Ex. R1, the risk of passengers travelling in the vehicle is covered. The same is eminent from the General Exceptions called out in the said policy which specific reference to clause 4, which reads as follows:

"4. Except so far as is necessary to meet the requirements of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Company shall not be liable in respect of death or bodily injury to any person (other than a passenger carried by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment) being carried in or upon or entering or mounting or alighting from the Motor Vehicle at the time of the occurrence of the event out of which any claim arises".

It is therefore, contended that the policy covers a passenger and when the claimant is a passenger the same is covered by the policy.

On hearing learned counsels, I am unable to accept such an interpretation.

The language used in clause 4 would mean other than a passenger carried by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment. It would therefore mean that, it is only those passengers, who are covered under a contract of employment that would stand covered by the policy and not others. To add meaning to the word passenger to include every passenger travelling in the vehicle would be covered by the policy cannot be the interpretation of clause 4 of the General Exceptions. The word used as a passenger in clause 4 is therefore, relatable to any person travelling in the vehicle other than the driver himself, but however, circumscribed by the fact that he should be under a contract of employment Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant on this ground is unsustainable. Clause 4 of the General Exceptions excludes only those persons who are in the vehicle in question pursuant to a contract of employment.

The second contention is insofar as the enhancement of compensation is concerned. Rs. 15,000/- was awarded towards medical expenses, which does not call for any enhancement. The appellant was an inpatient for a period of 10 days and Rs. 2,000/- was awarded towards loss of earnings during treatment period. The same is inappropriate. Hence, it is enhanced by a further sum of Rs. 20,000/-. The amount of Rs. 20,000/- awarded towards pain and agony is on the lower side. In view of the injury that he has sustained as well as the disability, which is a fracture of ribs and the injury to certain internal parts also, an additional sum of Rs. 30,000/- is awarded towards pain and agony. A sum of Rs. 20,000/- is awarded towards loss of amenities.

The compensation now awarded is as follows:

Hence, in all the compensation is enhanced by a sum of Rs. 70,000/- (Rs. 1,07,000/- less Rs. 37,000/-) which shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of the petition till the date of payment and shall be paid within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Ordered accordingly.