G. RADHAKRISHNA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THIS letters patent appeal is filed by the New India Assurance Company Limited aggrieved by the order of the learned single judge passed in A. A. O. No. 1401 of 198 6/08/1991.

( 2 ) THE facts of the case are that the wife and the children of the deceased one Guddi Venkataiah filed O. P. No. 141 of 1983, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Nizambad, under section 110a of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming a total compensation of Rs. 1,29,900 on the ground that the deceased, who was travelling in the lorry, bearing No. APL 2454, died when the said lorry met with an accident that took place on 19/01/1983, at 12. 30 p. m. near Brahmajiwadi Krishnajiwadi Village, Kamareddi Taluk, due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said lorry.

( 3 ) THE Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs. 33,000 fixing joint and several liability on the respondents therein to pay the said compensation to the claimants.

( 4 ) ON appeal filed by the appellant herein, the learned single judge held that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger and that the insurance company is liable in regard to "no-fault liability" under section 92a of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, and, accordingly, allowed the appeal in part limiting the liability of the appellant to Rs. 15,000 and dismissed the cross-objections. Hence, this Patent Appeal by the assurance company.

( 5 ) THE main contention of Sri Kota Subba Rao, learned standing counsel for the appellant, is that as the deceased was a gratuitous passenger, the appellant insurance company is not liable. In support of his contention, he relied on Section 96 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (corresponding to section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ). The said section deals with the duty of insurers to satisfy the judgments and awards against the persons insured in respect of third part risks.

( 6 ) IN Premier Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Vaddeswarapu Siromanamma [1984] ACJ 760; [1986] 59 Comp Cas 445, a Division Bench of this court held that to decide as to whether a policy covers the liability of the insurer in respect of a gratuitous passenger, it requires a perusal of the policy. As the policy was not filed, the case was remanded to the trial court.

( 7 ) IN K. Ramulu v. Shaik Khaja [1991] 1 ACJ 359, a learned single judge of this court found that the insurance company is liable to pay compensation under "no-fault liability" in the case of hire paid passengers. The learned judge further found that even if it is ultimately established that the insurer is not liable in regard to the amount awarded as per section 110b, still the insurance company is not entitled to recover the amount paid towards "no-fault liability". It follows that to the extent of "no-fault liability", the insurer is liable even in cases where it is not liable for the amount awarded under section 110b.

( 8 ) IN Oriental Five and General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Matta Chandra Rao [1987] 1 ACJ 174, a learned single judge of this court, after a very elaborate consideration of sections 95 and 96 of the old Act, held that the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation in respect of the two policemen who were carried gratuitously in a goods vehicle of whom one died and the other was injured, and that the insurance company would have been liable under the Act policy in respect of passengers carried for hire or reward.

( 9 ) IN Oriental Five and General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. M. Bhanumathi [1990] 2 SCJ 1043, a Division bench of this court held that where a passenger is carried for hire or reward in a lorry which is a goods vehicle, the insurer is not liable for death or bodily injury to such a passenger. Here, Siramonamma s case [1986] 59 Comp Cas 445 (AP) was distinguished and Chandra Rao s case [1987] 1 ACJ 174 (AP) was dissented from.

( 10 ) IN United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Immam Aminasab Nadaf [1990] 67 Comp Cas 287, a Full Bench of the Karnataka High Court found that as reg

Click Here to Read the rest of this document