United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Mandabai Shivdas Hiwale and Others

K.U. Chandiwal, J.—Heard. In a tragic accident, Shivdas succumbed to injuries. He was travelling in a truck bearing No. MWA-6626, which was driven rashly and negligently, gave dash to a tree at Khultabad-Phulambri road. Respondent No. 2, driver of the vehicle, was prosecuted. The appellant/insurance company did not dispute the accident; claimant''s interest; dependency and also the quantum. The grievance is, since the deceased was a gratuitous passenger, sitting in the cabin and expired in the accident, the insurance company is not liable to pay the amount. Evidence of Arun Jawanjal was put in by the insurance company, who deposed that 10-12 persons were travelling in goods-vehicle. As per the policy, at Exh. 64, the insurance company had taken risk of the driver only and not other person. There cannot be a controversy that in the accident of such character, travelling in goods-vehicle with 10-12 passengers, as gratuitous passenger, it was simply in breach of the terms of the insurance. Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act does not statutorily mandate to cover liability in respect of passenger in goods-vehicle unless such passenger is owner or agent or owner of goods, accompanying such goods in the vehicle. In this case, the claimants did not establish that deceased was travelling with goods. However, the travel of the deceased in the truck was certain.

The term "any person" in view of the 1994 amendment in MV Act, would only cover a third party as also owner of the goods and not any passenger carried in goods-vehicle, whether for hire or work or otherwise. In spite of this odd, direction by the learned Member to satisfy the award and then recover, does not call for interference, as this legal position is explained by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Baljit Kaur and Others, . The said judgment of Baljeet Kaur was referred in subsequent judgment in the matter of Sri Pramod Kumar Agrawal and Another Vs. Smt. Mushtari Begum and Others, . Considering above facts of the matter, the order of direction to pay and then recover against the appellant does not call for interference. The appeal lacks merit, dismissed. CA dismissed. Statutory deposit of Rs. 25,000/- be remitted to the learned Member, MACT, at Aurangabad, to be appropriated in MACP No. 488/2003.