Leekchand Sahu and Others vs Laxman Singh and Another

Bhawani Singh, C.J.—We propose to dispose of these appeals M.A. No. 437 of 1999, Leekchand v. Laxman Singh; M.A. No. 2262 of 1999, Leekchand v. Amira Bai; and M.A. No. 2263 of 1999, Leekchand v. Bisram Sahu by this judgment since they arise out of the same accident and similar award.

Accident took place on 23.2.1997 with a vehicle bearing the registration No. MP 29-B 0319, owned by Leekchand (deceased) (through legal representatives) driven by Shri Ram alias Jagannath, coming from Ramakona to Ulhawadi which turned turtle in the market resulting in death of Noor Mohammad and Ramdayal Sahu and injuries to Kishorilal, Laxman Singh, Ajab Singh and Gajanand. Claims have been filed by Amira Bi w/o Noor Mohammad, Bisram Sahu, father of Ramdayal Sahu, Laxman Singh, Kishorilal, Ajab Singh and Gajanand, in latter cases, for personal injuries. Allegation is that accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by driver. The defence of owner and driver is that accident took place due to the locking of steering wheel, otherwise, the vehicle was being driven cautiously. The insurance company has stated that deceased and other claimants were travelling by the vehicle as passengers. Since the vehicle was insured for use as goods vehicle, carrying passengers was prohibited by the insurance policy. As such, the insurance company was not liable to pay the compensation. It is also submitted that the driver did not possess valid driving licence for driving the vehicle.

Claims Tribunal framed issues in the case, permitted piies to lead evidence and came to the conclusion that accident took place as alleged resulting in the death of Noor Mohammad and Ramdayal and injuries to the four persons named above. However, it found that these persons were travelling as passengers and not owners of goods or labourers attached to the vehicle. As a result, the liability to pay the compensation has been fastened on the owner and driver of the vehicle thus exonerating the insurance company. The owner and driver have serious objection to the finding exonerating the insurance company from meeting the liability for payment of compensation.

Mr. Bhagwan Singh, learned Counsel for the appellants contends that Claims Tribunal committed serious error in appreciating the evidence resulting in wrong finding. Therefore, learned Counsel contends that evidence clearly suggests that the deceased and the other claimants were travelling by the vehicle along with their goods without payment of fare. Therefore, they were not fare paying passengers and conclusion of Claims Tribunal is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel placed reliance on two decisions in the cases of New India Assurance Company Vs. Shri Satpal Singh and Others, and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Goverdhan and Others,

Mr. Ruprah, learned Counsel for the insurance company, contends that there is no mis-appreciation of evidence by the Tribunal. The deceased and the claimants were not travelling by the vehicle with goods and that decision of Apex Court in New India Assurance Company Vs. Shri Satpal Singh and Others, has been referred to larger Bench by the Apex Court. Same is the submission of Mr. Anil Lala, learned Counsel.

With a view to understand whether Claims Tribunal has committed error in appreciating the evidence, learned Counsel for the parties took us through the evidence recorded in the case. After going through the statements of Amira Bi, Bisram Sahu, Laxman Singh, Kishorilal, Ajab Singh and Gajanand it is crystal clear that these persons had taken their goods to the market for sale through this vehicle. They were returning home by this vehicle along with goods�sand, gur, urea bags, gunni bags, chilli bags and wheat. There is no evidence suggesting that they paid fare to the driver or the owner of vehicle while returning home on the date of accident along with their goods. Therefore, the irresistible conclusion is that the deceased and claimants were travelling by this vehicle as owners of goods, non-fare paying passengers, consequently covered by the decisions referred to by learned Counsel for the appellants. Accordingly, finding recorded to the contrary by Claims Tribunal is set aside. The result is that the liability for payment of compensation would be that of insurance company and not of the appellants.

Appeals are disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

Costs on parties.