The main legal point established in the judgment is that an insurer is not liable to pay compensation to a gratuitous passenger involved in a motor vehicle accident if the policy does not cover risk to passengers who were not carried for hire or reward.

NEELAM SANJIVA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE fifth respondent-insurer in O. P. No. 293 of 1981 on the file of the Motor accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge), East Godavari, Rajahmundry, preferred this appeal against the order dated 22-8-1984 granting a total compensation of Rs. 17,000/- to the petitioner involved in a motor vehicle accident,

( 2 ) FACTS necessary for disposal of this appeal briefly stated are these:parties are referred to as arrayed in the Tribunal. Respondents 1 to 3 are driver, owner and insurer respectively of the jeep bearing No. APW 4265. Respondents 4 and 5 are owner and insurer respectively of the scooter bearing no. ADI 745. On 19-7-1981 at about 1 a. m. the jeep and the scooter collided and at that time, the petitioner was a pillion rider of the scooter. He sustained injuries in the accident. He filed the above O. P. for a total compensation of rs. 40,000/- against all the respondents. The tribunal, after considering the evidene on record, awarded a total compensation of Rs. 34,000/- and ordered the respondents 1 to 3 pay Rs. 17,000/- and respondents 4 and 5 to pay rs. 17,000/-as the driversof both vehicles were equally negligentin causing the accident.

( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submits that the petitioner was only a gratuitous passenger and there was no statutory or contractual liability to pay any compensation to him by the appellant. It is quite apparent from the record that the petitioner was not carried for hire or reward as pillion rider on the scooter. Ex. B-1 policy in respect of the scooter shows that it was insured only in respect of third parties. The terms of Ex. B-1 exclude payment of compensation to any person carried gratuitously. Therefore, there was no contractual liability on the appellant to indemnify the insured against gratuitou s pillion rider of the scooter.

( 4 ) SECTIONS 95 (a) and 95 (b) (i) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 do not require that a policy of insurance should cover risk to the passengers who were not carried for hire or reward. In Pushpabai vs. Ranjit G and P. Company the Supreme court observed:"20. Sections 95 (a) and 95 (b) (i) of the Motor Vehicles Act adopted the provisions of the English Road Traffic Act, 1960 and excluded the liability of the insurance company regarding the risk to the passengers. Section 95 provides that a policy of insurance must be a policy which insures the persons against any liability which may be incurred by him in respect of death or bodily injury to any person or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicles in a public place. The plea that the words"third party" are wide enough to cover all persons except the person and the insurer is negatived as the insurance cover is not available to the passengers made dear by the proviso to sub-section which provides that a policy shall not be required: " (ii) except where the vehicle is a vehicle in which passengers are carried for hire or reward or by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment, to cover liability in respect of the death of or bodily injury to persons being carried in or upon or entering or mounting or alighting from the vehicle at the time of the occurrence of the event out of which a claim arises. "therefore,itisnot required that a policy of insurance should cover risk to the passengers who are not carried for hire or reward. As under section 95 the risk to a passenger in a vehicle who is not carried for hire or reward is not required to be insured the plea of the counsel for the insurance company will have to be accepted and the insurance company held not liable under the requirements of the Motor Vehicles Act. "from the above, it is clear that a passenger who is not carried for hire or reward cannot be considered as third party for the purpose of third party insurance. Under the above circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner-claimant was not covered by Ex. B-1 policy, and that the appellant-ins

Click Here to Read the rest of this document