Back
1996 Supreme(Kar) 97
Karnataka High Court
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, BANGALORE - Appellant
Versus
NINGAMMA - Respondent
Decided On : 02-08-96
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the status of a person as a passenger or a third party at the time of an accident should be determined based on the specific circumstances and legal definitions, rather than the relationship between the person and the transporter.
Headnote:
passenger - Liability of Insurer - Section 147(l)(a) and (b) - Rule 3(k) of Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1963 - The court discussed the definition of a passenger and a third party under the relevant legal provisions and case law. It concluded that the deceased, who was knocked down by the bus after getting down at an intermediary stop, should be treated as a third party at the time of the accident, and the appellant's liability is not limited to Rs. 15,000/- as contended.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased, a passenger in a bus, got down at an intermediary stop and was knocked down by the same bus when he was still outside. The tribunal awarded compensation, and the appellant-insurer contested the liability, claiming it was restricted to Rs. 15,000/- as the deceased was a passenger.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the legal provisions and case law to determine the status of the deceased at the time of the accident. It concluded that the deceased should be treated as a third party, and the appellant's liability is not limited to Rs. 15,000/-.
Issues: The main issue was whether the deceased, who got down at an intermediary stop and was knocked down by the bus, should be considered a passenger or a third party for determining the liability of the insurer.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the status of the deceased at the time of the accident should be determined based on whether he was a passenger or a third party, considering the relevant legal provisions and case law.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant's liability was not limited to Rs. 15,000/- as the deceased was considered a third party at the time of the accident.
( 1 ) THOUGH this matter came up for admission by consent of both sides the matter is treated as admitted and heard on merits.
( 2 ) THE point that arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether a person who is travelling in a bus gets down at an intermediary stop to make some purchase and is knocked down by the same bus when he is still outside, should be treated as a passenger of the bus or a third party for the purpose of determining the liability of the insurer.
( 3 ) IT is now not disputed that one siddaraj, son of respondents 1 and 2, was travelling in the bus belonging to 4th respondent on 23-10-1989 from kadukothanahalli to mandya. When the bus stopped at sabbanahalli, siddaraju got down and went to purchase cigarette. When he was returning towards the bus on the left side of the road the bus suddenly started and it went and knocked down siddaraju who was killed at the spot. On the claim made by respondents 1 and 2 the tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 73,000/ -.
( 4 ) THE appellant-insurer of the bus had contended that its liability was restricted to Rs. 15,000/- under the terms of the policy as the deceased was a passenger in the bus. However the tribunal has made the appellant jointly and severally liable along with respondents 3 and 4 for the entire compensation.
( 5 ) SRI b. c. seetharama rao, learned counsel for the appellant, strenuously contended that the deceased was a passenger in the bus, that at the time of the accident he had still not reached his destination, that a passenger continues to be a passenger till he reaches his destination and that the relationship between the passenger and the transporter does not come to an end merely because the passenger gets down at an intermediary stop. According him for the purpose of determining the liability of the insurer the deceased must be treated as a passenger of the bus and in that event the liability as per the terms of the policy would only be Rs. 15,000/ -.
( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2, Smt. ratna mala, however contended that as the deceased was outside the bus when he was knocked down he must be treated as a third party and the tribunal has rightly made the insurer liable for the entire compensation.
( 7 ) SRI b. c. seetharama rao, relying on the decision of this court in national insurance company limited, Bangalore v Smt. Balawwa and others, contended that just as in that case it is held that if during the period which an employee is attending to work goes to answer the calls of nature, it cannot be said that he was out of employment during that short period and that he must be deemed to be on employment even during that period, in the present case also if a passenger who has still not reached the destination leaves the bus for some purpose at an intermediary stop, he must be held to continued to be a passenger. The law applicable to a case of an employer and an employee for the purpose of determining the liability under the Workmen's Compensation Act would not be apposite to determine the point at issue. Section 147 (l) (a) and (b) which lays down the requirements of policies reads as hereunder:"section 147 (l) (a) is issued by a person who is an authorised insurer; and (b) insures the person or classes of persons specified in the policy to the extent specified in sub-section (2), (i) against any liability which may be incurred by him in respect of the death of 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 vehicle in a public place; (ii) 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": (rest of the Provisions not quoted as unnecessary) the above provision shows that what the insurer is required to insure is against the liability which may be incurred by death or bodily injury to any person of third party or passenger of
