The owner of goods carried in a goods vehicle is not entitled to claim compensation for any accident which causes him injury or death, and the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation in such cases.

VISWANATHA SASTRY, J.

( 1 ) THE short point that arises in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal involves an interpretation of Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to this appeal are briefly as follows : The Hindustan Ideal Insurance Company Ltd. , Hyderabad, the 2nd respondent in the lower Court, is the appellant herein. The predecessor-in-title of the petitioners in the lower Court was involved in an accident on 24-2-1969 in the lorry APK 5105 belonging to the first respondent in the lower Court who is now impleaded as the 6th respondent herein. The petitioners alleged that on account of the vehicle, it ended in an accident causing the death of Sivaramaiah, the predecessor-in-title of the petitioners.

( 3 ) IN the lower Court the Insurance Company contested the petition raising the pleas that there was no negligence on the part of the driver and also raising the following plea in paragraph 6 :"this respondent submits that in view of the agreed conditions regarding limitations as to use of the vehicle viz. , that the vehicle should be used only under a Public Carrier Permit within the meaning of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and that the policy does not cover the use of the vehicle for the conveyance of passengers for hire or reward, this respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners claimants inasmuch as the deceased was a passenger in the vehicle at the time of the accident. "

( 4 ) IN the lower Court it was found that there was negligence on the part of the driver and the petitioners were entitled to a compensation of Rs. 9500. 00. Since the vehicle was insured with the 2nd respondent the appellant herein, the lower Court made the Company liable for the said sum and directed the Insurance Company to pay the said amount with an interest at the rate of 4 per cent annum from the date of the petition viz, 18-6-1969 till date of payment, together with proportionate costs.

( 5 ) IN this appeal by the Insurance Company, we are not concerned with the question as to the negligence of the driver or the quantum of compensation fixed by the lower Court. The only point urged by the insurance Company is that as a result of the violations of the terms of the Policy and in view of the provisions of Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter called the Act), they are not liable to pay any amount to the claimants.

( 6 ) THE lower Court has dealt with their plea about their non-liability on the above grounds, in paragraph 11. It was contended by the Insurance Company before the lower Court that the lorry was intended to carry merchandise goods and not to carry any persons much less the owner or the agent of the owner of the goods and therefore the heirs of the deceased are not entitled to claim any compensation.

( 7 ) THE claimants in the lower Court relied upon a decision of Alagiriswami, J. (as he then was) in Vanguard Insurance Co. v. Chinnammal, AIR 1970 Mad 236. That was a case in which a servant of the owner of the goods who was carried in the lorry died on account of the accident to the lorry. The contention raised before the learned Judge was that the contract of employment contemplated by Section 95 of the Act, should be only a contract of employment with the insured but not with the owner of the goods. The said contention was repelled by the learned Judge in the following terms :"though, on superficial view, of the section it might appear that the words "contract of employment" found in Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act would cover only a contract of employment with the owner of the insured vehicles, there is a preponderance of authority in favour of the other view that it would cover not only such persons but also persons who are on the vehicle in pursuance of a contract of employment with the owner of the goods carried in it. What is necessary is that for sufficient practical or business "reasons, the person must be on the vehicle in pursuance of a contract of employment.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document