( 1 ) FIRST respondent initially filed claim petition under Section 166 of Motor vehicles Act 1988 showing the State Bank of India represented by its Branch Manager, naidupet, appellant, S. Ravindranath, and another Branch Manager of the appellant as respondents, seeking compensation of rs. 50,000/- alleging that due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the jeep in which he was travelling, that jeep dashed against a lorry belonging to ravindranath which was insured with the appellant, at Palamaneru. Subsequently he added the second respondent as the owner of the jeep on the ground that he purchased the jeep from the State Bank of india before the date of accident.

( 2 ) IN support of his claim, first respondent examined himself as P. W. 1 and marked Exs. Al to A4. State Bank of India, second respondent and Ravindranath chose to remain ex parte. On behalf of the appellant a counter was filed, inter alia contending that inasmuch as the first respondent was travelling in the jeep, which was insured only for third party risk, it is not liable to pay any compensation, and examined one witness as R. W. 1 and marked a copy of the insurance policy as Ex. B1 on its behalf. The Tribunal held that the first respondent is entitled to Rs. 27,000/- as compensation for the injuries suffered by him in the accident from the second respondent and the appellant. Aggrieved by the said award, the appellant insurer preferred this appeal.

( 3 ) THE point for consideration in this appeal is "whether the appellant is liable to pay compensation to the first respondent ?"

( 4 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that since the evidence of R. W. 1 shows that the jeep in which the first respondent was travelling as a fare paying passenger, was insured only for third party risk, and as that insurance does not cover the risk of passengers travelling in the jeep, the Tribunal was in error in passing an award against the appellant and relied on United India assurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh, 2006 (3) ALD 75 (SC) = 2006 ACJ 1441, in support of his contention. The contention of the learned Counsel for the first respondent is that since the Tribunal gave cogent reasons for its conclusion that appellant is also liable and since there nothing in Ex. B1 to show that it does not cover the risk of passengers, there are no grounds to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal. He relied on Rashma Bai and others v. Darshanlal and others, 2006 ACJ 1672, where it is held that when there is no evidence on record to show that the breach was within the knowledge of the owner, the insurance company can be made liable.

( 5 ) THE fact that the first respondent made State Bank of India (ADB)represented by its Branch Manager, naidupet, as the first respondent in the claim petition shows that according to him the state Bank of India was the owner of the jeep, in which he was travelling. It is not the case of the first respondent that the state Bank of India was hiring out the jeep as a public service vehicle. public service vehicle is defined in Section 2 (35) of the motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) as any motor vehicle used or adapted to be used for the carriage of passengers for hire or reward, and includes a maxicab, a motorcab, contract carriage, and stage carriage. In the circumstances, it can be presumed that the jeep in which the first respondent was travelling, was not a public service vehicle.

( 6 ) AS per Section 147 (1)b (ii) of the act, a policy of insurance has to be taken compulsorily against the death of or bodily injury to any passenger of a public service vehicle caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place. Since the jeep was not a public service vehicle, insurance of passengers travelling in a jeep was optional and not compulsory.

( 7 ) EX. B1 shows that the policy is an act policy only. So it covers the risk of third parties but not the passengers either gratuitous or fare paying. In New

Click Here to Read the rest of this document