9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2008 (2) TMI 855X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e mudguard of the said tractor which was going to Hoshiarpur loaded with 'safeda' wood. Owing to rash and negligent driving by Ajay Kumar, the deceased fell down and came underneath the said tractor. A claim petition was filed before the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal on 19.07.2001 by the heirs and legal representatives of the said deceased. Appellant, in its written statement, inter alia, raised the following contentions : (1) The deceased being a passenger in the said tractor, was not a third party within the meaning of the provisions of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act. (2) As he was travelling on the mudguard of the tractor in breach of conditions of contract of insurance, the insurance company was not liable to reimburse the owner of the vehicle; and (3) Ajay Kumar, being the son of one of the owners of the tractor and having no licence to drive the same, the case comes within the purview of the exeption as regards the liability of the insurer as envisaged under sub-section (2) of Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 4. The Tribunal in the said proceedings, inter alia, framed the following issues : "(2) Whether the respondent No.1 was not having any valid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n is stayed thereon pending an appeal; and an insurer to whom notice of the bringing of any such proceedings is so given shall be entitled to be made a party thereto and to defend the action on any of the following grounds, namely:- (a) that there has been a breach of a specified condition of the policy, being one of the following conditions, namely:- (i) a condition excluding the use of the vehicle- (a) for hire or reward, where the vehicle is on the date of the contract of insurance a vehicle not covered by a permit to ply for hire or reward, or (ii) a condition excluding driving by a named person or persons or by any person who is not duly licensed, or by any person who has been disqualified for holding or obtaining a driving licence during the period of disqualification; or (iii) a condition excluding liability for injury caused or contributed to by conditions of war, civil war, riot or civil commotion; or (b) that the policy is void on the ground that it was obtained by the nondisclosure of a material fact or by a representation of fact which was false in some material particular." 9. Extent of liability of an insurance company in terms of the said provision came up for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 95 of the old Act prescribing requirement of 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 (in short 'WC Act"). There is no reference to any passenger in "goods carriage". 11. 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." In Oriental Insuirance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Jhuma Saha & Ors. [AIR 2007 SC 1054], it was held : "11. Liability of the insurer-company is to the extent of indemnification of the insured against the respondent or an injured person, a third person or in respect of damages of property. Thus, if the insured cannot be fastened with any liability under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, the question of the insurer being l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y." Swaran Singh (supra) was also distinguished stating that therein the vehicle involved having a third party risk stating : "17. It is difficult to apply the ratio of this decision to a case not involving a third party. The whole protection provided by Chapter XI of the Act is against third party risk. Therefore, in a case where a person is not a third party within the meaning of the Act, the insurance company cannot be made automatically liable merely by resorting to the Swaran Singh (supra) ratio. This appears to be the position. This position was expounded recently by this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Laxmi Narain Dhut [2007 (4) SCALE 36]. This Court after referring to Swaran Singh (supra) and discussing the law summed up the position thus: In view of the above analysis the following situations emerge: 1. The decision in Swaran Singh's case (supra) has no application to cases other than third party risks. 2. Where originally the licence was a fake one, renewal cannot cure the inherent fatality. 3. In case of third party risks the insurer has to indemnify the amount and if so advised, to recover the same from the insured. 4. The concept of purposive interpreta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch may be incurred by the owner of a vehicle against the death of or bodily injury to any passenger of a public service vehicle caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place.' [See also National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Bommithi Subbhayamma and Ors. [(2005) 12 SCC 243]; United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Shimla v. Tilak Singh and Ors. [(2006) 4 SCC 404]; Prem Kumar & Ors. v. Prahlad Dev & Ors. [2008 (1) SCALE 531] and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Prithvi Raj [2008 (1) SCALE 727]" Having said so, we must take notice of the fact that the deceased Baldev Singh was labourer. The Tribunal has found that besides being a labourer, he also used to deal in Safeda wood. He was the owner of the 'Safeda' wood which was being transported to the market for its sale. The first respondent, Darshana Devi, in her deposition, stated that the deceased used to purchase wood from the State of Himachal Pradesh on contract basis. Only Gurdial Singh and Ravinder Singh were accompanying him as labourer. His income was assessed only at Rs. 2,400 per month. 13. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that it is not a fit case where this Court should exercise its discretionary ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
