National Insurance Company Limited vs Ram Chander and Another

Jewahar Lal Gupta, J.—On October 24, 1995, 12 persons were travelling in TATA 407 Truck. They were accompanying certain goods, which were being carried by them to a fare. The truck was being driven fast. It turned turtle. All the 12 were injured. They filed petitions for the grant of compensation on account of the injuries sustained by them. While these petitions were pending, Phool Chand, who was one of the claimants, passed away on August 13, 1997. His legal representatives were impleaded. However, the claim on account of his death was rejected on the ground that the death had not occurred on account of the accident. The claim of the remaining persons was upheld by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Aggrieved by the award, Insurance Company has filed these seven appeals.

Mr. R.M. Suri, learned counsel for the appellant, contends that the respondents were travelling in a gods vehicle. The Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the owner for carrying passengers in a truck. Consequently, the counsel claims that the liability has been wrongly imposed. He places reliance on a decision of the Division Bench of this Court reported as Harish Chand and Ors. v. Smt. Boti and Ors. (1998)93 P.L.R. 840.

The matter has been considered in detail by the Tribunal. It has been found that the injured were carrying their own goods to the fare. Thus, the Insurance Company was liable.

Mr. Suri contends that the view taken by the Tribunal is contrary to the provisions of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

We cannot accept this contention. A perusal of Section 147(1)(b)(i) of the aforesaid Act clearly shows that an insurer is liable to indemnify the owner of the goods vehicle "against any liability which may be incurred by him (the owner of vehicle) in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any person, including owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle . . . . " The Section clearly provides for the insurer to indemnify the owner of the vehicle in a case where the owner of the goods travelling in a goods carrier is injured. This is also the view taken by the Division Bench in Harish Chand''s case (supra).

Mr. Suri also places reliance on the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Smt. Mallawwa etc. v. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., and Ors. 1999(1) P.L.R. 1 (S.C.)

We have perused the decision, we do not find that their Lordships have taken a contrary view. In fact, the view of the Full Bench of the Orissa High Court in New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Kanchan Bewa and Others, , has been approved. This was not the case where owner of the goods was travelling along with his goods.

No other point has been raised.

In view of the above, we find not ground to interfere with the award given by the Tribunal in all the seven cases. The appeals are consequently, dismissed in limine.