N. Y. HANUMANTHAPPA, J.

( 1 ) SINCE the question of law involved in all these appeals is common these appeals are disposed of by a common order.

( 2 ) THE question of law to be decided in these appeals, is whether an unauthorized passenger travelling in a vehicle which met with an accident is entitled to claim compensation under Section 166 of the motor Vehicles Act?

( 3 ) UNDER similar circumstances, a division Bench of this Court in New India assurance Company Limited vs. Pesala Kishore kumar and others held that the claimants are entitled for compensation only from the owner of the vehicle and also observed that any direction to Insurance Company to pay compensation under no fault liability is incorrect.

( 4 ) FROM the evidence it is clear that the injured victims in all the cases were unauthorized passengers or in other words gratuitous passengers. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in National insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Jattu Ramu and others the liability to pay the compensation is only on the owner of the motor vehicle and not on the Insurance Company.

( 5 ) THE Supreme Court in Mallawwa and others vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and others held as follows:10. For the purposes of Section 95 ordinarily a vehicle could have been regarded as a vehicle in which passengers are carried if the vehicle was of that class. Keeping in mind the classification of vehicles, by the Act, the requirement of registration with particulars including the class to which it belonged, the requirement of obtaining a permit for using the vehicle for different purposes and compulsory coverage of insurance risk, it would not be proper to consider a goods vehicle as a passenger vehicle on the basis of a single use or use on some stray occasions of that vehicle for carrying passengers for hire or reward. For the purpose of construing a provision like proviso (ii) to Section 95 (1) (b), the correct test to determine whether a passenger was carried for hire or reward, would be whether there has been a systematic carrying of passengers. Only if the vehicle is so used then that vehicle can be said to be a vehicle in which passengers are carried for hire or reward. The High courts have expressed divergent views on the question whether a passenger can be said to have been carried for hire or reward when he travels in goods vehicle either on payment of fare or along with his goods. It is not necessary to refer to those decisions which were cited at the bar as we find the all the relevant aspects were not taken into consideration while expressing one view or the other. We may only refer to the decision of the Orissa High court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. us. Kanchan Bewa: 1994 ACJ 138 (Orissa), where Hansaria. J, speaking for the Full Bench observed as under: "18. The aforesaid is not enough to take any view as to whether goods vehicle can or cannot come within the fold of proviso (ii) with which we are concerned. Our primary reason for differing, with respect, with the rajasthan Full Bench is that allowing goods vehicle to be taken within the fold of proviso (ii) would introduce uncertainties in law as that would depend upon various factors to which we shall advert; the result would be that the law would cease to be certain which it has to be at least in a case of the present nature. We have said so because reference to the definition of goods vehicle shows that the first part of it does not deal with carrying of passengers. It is the second part which speaks about the same and that too when the vehicle is used for such a purpose. The word use has been defined in Chambers English dictionary in its intransitive sense to mean to be accustomed; (to; used chiefly in the past tense) , to be in the habit of so doing "to resort . Reference to the meaning of this word, as given in Black s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, would show that even one user may amount to use or it may be that for a thing being said to be used , it has to be employ

Click Here to Read the rest of this document