Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.C. LAHOTI, CJI., G.P. MATHUR AND A.K. MATHUR, JJ.
M.V. JAYADEVAPPA AND ANOTHER APPELLANTS;
VERSUS
ORIENTAL FIRE & GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND OTHERS RESPONDENTS.
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5793-94 OF 1998,
DECIDED ON DECEMBER 14, 2004
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 149 -Liability of Insurance Company- The vehicle was commercial vehicle- The licensed carrying capacity of goods is specified as "2 tons"-It was no where mentioned that the vehicle could carry passengers- The High Court rightly exonerated the Insurance Company- The vehicle was a goods vehicle and could not carry passengers- Order of the High Court upheld [Paras 2 and 3]
ORDER
1. THE OWNER HAS COME UP IN APPEAL BY SPECIAL LEAVE FEELING AGGRIEVED BY THE JUDGMENT OF THE HIGH COURT WHEREBY IN AN APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE INSURANCE COMPANY AGAINST THE AWARD MADE BY THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL THE AWARD HAS BEEN DIRECTED TO BE MODIFIED EXONERATING THE INSURANCE COMPANY AND CONFINING THE LIABILITY OF PAYMENT TO THE OWNER OF THE VEHICLE ONLY.
2. WE HAVE PERUSED THE COPY OF THE INSURANCE POLICY (EXT. D/2) AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT RECORDS THE VEHICLE AS A COMMERCIAL VEHICLE. IN THE SCHEDULE ANNEXED WITH THE POLICY THE VEHICLE IS DESCRIBED AS "CHEVROLET LORRY WITH OPEN BODY". THE LICENSED CARRYING CAPACITY OF GOODS IS SPECIFIED AS "2 TONS". IT IS NOWHERE MENTIONED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS AUTHORISED TO CARRY PASSENGERS.
3. THE SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN THAT THE VEHICLE BEING A PASSENGERS VEHICLE, THE LIABILITY SHOULD HAVE BEEN PASSED ON TO THE INSURANCE COMPANY WITHOUT REGARD TO THE FACT WHETHER THE PASSENGERS WERE GRATUITOUS OR NOT. HAVING PERUSED THE PARTICULARS OF THE VEHICLE, AS GIVEN IN THE INSURANCE POLICY, WE ARE SATISFIED THAT THE VEHICLE COULD NOT HAVE CARRIED PASSENGERS. THE VEHICLE SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN A GOODS VEHICLE. THE HIGH COURT HAS RIGHTLY EXONERATED THE INSURANCE COMPANY.
4. WE ARE SATISFIED THAT NO FAULT CAN BE FOUND WITH THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE HIGH COURT. THE APPEALS ARE DEVOID OF ANY MERIT AND ARE DISMISSED.
5. NO ORDER AS TO THE COSTS.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
