Back
1995 Supreme(AP) 7
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : S.PARVATHA RAO
Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Bondili Sitharam Singh - Respondent
Decided On : 01-10-95
A passenger for hire or reward is not covered by an insurance policy that excludes coverage for such passengers.
Headnote:
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - INSURANCE - LIABILITY OF INSURER - PASSENGER FOR HIRE OR REWARD - COVERAGE UNDER POLICY - INTERPRETATION OF POLICY PROVISIONS AND RULES.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased, Lalith Kumar Singh, was traveling in a lorry carrying red metal when the accident occurred. He was carrying some luggage with him and paid Rs. 10/- as fare. The Tribunal found that the deceased was not a gratuitous passenger and that he was carried in the lorry for hire and since it was covered by an insurance policy, the appellant and the owner were liable to pay compensation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the deceased was traveling for hire or reward along with his luggage and that he was not covered by the insurance policy. The court also found that the lorry was being used in violation of the rules.
Issues: 1. Whether the deceased was a passenger for hire or reward. 2. Whether the deceased was covered by the insurance policy. 3. Whether the lorry was being used in violation of the rules.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the deceased was a passenger for hire or reward based on the fact that he paid Rs. 10/- as fare. 2. The court held that the deceased was not covered by the insurance policy because the policy excluded coverage for passengers carried for hire or reward. 3. The court held that the lorry was being used in violation of the rules because it was carrying a passenger for hire or reward without a permit.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal against respondents 1, 3, and 4 and dismissed it against respondent 2.
( 1 ) IN this appeal against the Order dated 17-3-1987ofthe Ist Additional District Judge-cum-Ist Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Krishna at Machili patnam in M. V. O. P. No. 100 of 1985, the Insurance Company contends that it is wrongly made liable for payment of the compensation for the death of one Bondili Lalith Kumar Singh in a motor accident involving lorry bearing registration No. ABK 339 on 8-9-1984 near Gudlavalleru in Krishna Distirct.
( 2 ) RESPONDENTS 1 to 4 herein preferred the said O. P. claiming in all a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs towards compensation for the death of Lalith Kumar Singh. Lalith Kumar Singh was the son of respondents 1 and 2 herein and the brother of respondents 3 and 4 herein. The 5th respondent was the owner of the lorry. The Tribunal held that the accident occurred because of the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver, the 1st respondent in the O. P. He is not impleaded in the present appeal. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 50,000/- in all. The Tribunal held that the said amount was payable by the 5th respondent and the appellant herein (respondents 2 and 3 in the O. P. respectively ). The Tribunal found that the deceased paid Rs. 10/- for himself and for the "goods" that he was carrying and that he travelled in the lorry ABK 339 which met with the accident. The 5th respondent did not prefer any appeal and therefore the order dated 17-3-1987 had become final as against her.
( 3 ) HOW the deceased got into the lorry was described by P. W. 4 another person who got into the lorry along with the deceased and who escaped without any injuries. P. W. 4 stated that they both stopped the lorry at Gudivada; the deceased was having two gunny bags containing something, an oil tin and a brief case;the lorry driver demanded Rs. 2.- from him and Rs. 10/- from the deceased as he was also having luggage; they both paid the said amount to the lorry driver; the lorry was loaded with red metal; himself and the cleaner got into the body of the lorry containing red metal; the luggage of the deceased was placed on the red metal; the deceased got into the cabin and kept his suit case with him: all this happened around 2-00 A. M. on 8-9-1984. When the lorry reached Gudlavalleru, it dashed against a culvert which was on the left side and then dashed to an electric pole and fell into the drain on the left side of the road. As P. W. 4 fell over the water hyacinth, he was saved. The deceased and the cleaner fell underneath the lorry and died. This happened about 3 A. M. P. W. 4 did not receive any injury. He went to Gudlavalleru police station, which was nearby, and reported the accident to the police.
( 4 ) AFTER discussing the evidence on record,the Tribunal concluded that the deceased was not a gratuitous passenger and that he was carried in the lorry for hire and since it was covered by an insurance policy, the appellant herein and the owner i. e. , the 5th respondent herein, were liable to pay the compensation.
( 5 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellant does not seriously question the finding that the deceased was carrying some luggage - rice, oil tin, etc. , along with him and that he was accompanying the same. He questions only the finding of the Tribunal on tine question of the liability of the insurer to pay the compensation on the facts of the present case. He contends that neither the Act Policy nor the policy in the present case cover a passenger for hire or reward like the deceased. The learned Counsel relies on a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. M. Bhanumathi1 wherein the Division Bench held as follows:"if passengers travelling in a goods vehicle without payment of any fare taking a free lift are not covered by the compulsory insurance or the Act policy as we may call it, there is no reason why persons who travel by paying fare should be covered by the Act policy. Surely the framers of the Act would not have inten
