New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Parmanand and Others

S.S. Jha, J.—This appeal is filed by Insurance Company on the ground that Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation, as vehicle was driven in violation of policy of the insurance. Respondent No. 1 has filed cross-objection.

Facts of the case are as under:

Respondent No. 1 has filed an application u/s 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs. 6,19,000/-. Respondent No. 1 claimed that he was travelling in a goods carriage which met with an Accident between Myana and Guna and resulted into permanent disability. On 14.5.1992 at about 10 ''o clock in the morning respondent was travelling in a truck No. MP06/4245 from Myana to Guna. Respondent has paid fare of Rs. 4/- for the journey and boarded the goods carriage along with one bag of wheat. The vehicle was driven with rash and negligent manner, which resulted into overturning of the truck. Respondent claimed that he has suffered permanent disability and filed the case.

Appellant has taken a specific plea that Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the insured. The vehicle was driven in contravention of policy. Under the policy no passenger is allowed to travel in a goods carriage. He referred to the judgment in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Baljit Kaur and Others, , and referred to para 26 of the judgment in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani and Ors. reported in III (2002) A.C.C. 753 : 2(2003) S.C.C. 223. It is held in para 26 of the said judgment that "in view of the charges in the relevant provisions in the 1988 Act vis-a-vis the 1939 Act, we are of the opinion that the meaning of the words ''any person'' must also be attributed having regard to the context in which they have been used i.e., ''a third party''. Keeping in view the provisions of the 1988 Act, we are of the opinion that as the provisions thereof do not enjoin any statutory liability on the owner of a vehicle to get his vehicle insured for any passenger travelling in a goods vehicle, the insurers would not be liable therefor." Counsel for the Appellant, therefore, submitted that in the light of the aforesaid judgment, insurer Is not liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle.

In the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ajit Kumar and Others, , the question of person travelling in a goods carriage has been considered. While considering the expression "goods vehicle" and its definition u/s 2(14) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 it is held that "goods carriage" means any motor vehicle constructed or adapted for use solely for the carriage of goods, or any motor vehicle not so constructed or adapted when used for the carriage of goods. It is further held that the difference in the language of "goods vehicle" as appearing in the old Act and "goods carriage" in the new Act is of significance. A bare reading of the provisions makes it clear that the legislative intent was to prohibit goods vehicle from carrying any passenger. This is clear from the expression "in addition to passengers" as contained in the definition of "goods vehicle" in the old Act. The position becomes further clear because the expression used in "goods carriage" is "solely for the carriage of goods". Carrying of passengers in a goods carriage is not contemplated in the Act. There is no provision similar to Clause (ii) of the proviso appended to Section 95 of the old Act prescribing requirement of the insurance policy. Even Section 147 of the Act mandates compulsory coverage against death of or bodily injury to any passenger of "public service vehicle". The proviso makes it further clear that compulsory coverage in respect of drivers and conductors of public service vehicle and employees carried in goods vehicle would be limited to liability under the Workmen''s Compensation Act, 1923. There is no reference to any passenger in "goods carriage", It is held that the "inevitable conclusion, therefore, is that provisions of the Act do not enjoin any statutory liability on the owner of a vehicle to get his vehicle insured for any passenger travelling in a goods carriage and the insurer would have no liability therefor.

Since it is held that the Insurance Company is not liable, in the facts of this case we hold that the Insurance Company will not be liable to pay any compensation as passenger was travelling in violation of statutory provisions of law and we hold that the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the claimant. However, any amount deposited by the Insurance Company with the Claims Tribunal and paid to the claimant can be recovered by Insurance Company in the execution proceedings from the owner of the vehicle. As regards remaining amount of award is concerned, the claimant is directed to recover the same from the owner and driver of the vehicle. Insurance Company is exonerated.

Heard on the cross-objection filed by respondent No. 1-claimant.

It is contended that a meagre sum of Rs. 30,000/- has been awarded towards the injury and disability to the respondent No. 1-claimant.

We have gone through the evidence on record and the judgment. Respondent No. 1 has not examined treating doctor or any other doctor. He has not filed any vouchers or documents pertaining to the expenditures in the medical treatment, whereas it is a duty of the claimant that in the case of grievous injury proof of actual expenses incurred in medical treatment supported by bills/vouchers should be relied in the Court and evidence regarding permanent disability should be proved by cogent evidence. Respondent No. 1 has failed to file any voucher or bill for his treatment and no document pertaining to his treatment has been filed. There is no evidence on record regarding the disability of the respondent-claimant. Therefore, we do not think that the Tribunal has erred in awarding compensation of Rs. 30,000/- to the claimant. No case is made out for interference.

Appeal succeeds and cross-objection is dismissed.