The main legal point established is the interpretation of insurance liability for pillion riders and the need for comprehensive insurance for two-wheelers, highlighting the importance of compulsory coverage for pillion riders.

M. F. SALDANHA, J.

( 1 ) THESE two appeals, the first one preferred by the owner of the scooter in question and the second one preferred by the insurance company are directed against an award of the Tribunal dated 20. 4. 1987 in M. V. C. No. 695 of 1981. Around midnight on 11. 1. 1981, the deceased G. S. Venkatesh was travelling as a pillion rider on a scooter No. MEJ 6042 belonging to George oakes Co. who is the appellant in the first of the two appeals. It is alleged that a truck which was being driven at high speed collided with the scooter and after dragging it for a distance of about 58 ft. sped away without stopping. A police constable who was close by heard the noise of the impact and rushed to the spot where he found the badly damaged vehicle and the rider as also the pillion rider lying unconscious. Venkatesh who was the pillion rider of the scooter died some time later. The present claim has been preferred by the late father of Venkatesh who contended that he was their only son and only means of sustenance to the parents in their old age, that he had recently taken up a reasonably good job in Bangalore and that consequently, the claimants before the Tribunal were entitled to compensation of Rs. 3,00,000. After hearing the matter, the tribunal came to the conclusion that Rs. 70,000 along with interest and costs was payable and the Tribunal held the owner as also the insurance company jointly and severally liable. The owner has challenged the liability principally on the ground that there existed valid insurance cover at the relevant time and that therefore, the whole of the liability must devolve on the insurance company. The reverse plea has been canvassed by the insurance company whereby it is contended that the policy does not cover the pillion rider and that therefore, the joint and several liability foisted on the insurance company is erroneous.

( 2 ) AT the hearing, learned Counsel who represents the owner initially raised the contention that undoubtedly the scooter belonged to the company but that the liability of the company would be confined to any death or injury that occurred in relation to use of the vehicle in the course of the employment or for official purpose. It is clarified that the rider of the scooter was an employee of the owner company and that the vehicle had been given to him also for his personal use. It is also relevant to point out that no evidence was led either by the owner or the insurance company before the Tribunal and that consequently, the pleas that have been canvassed are essentially on points of law. I find it impossible on the present record to uphold the plea that the liability of the owner could arise only if the vehicle was in the course of official use because there is nothing on record to indicate that the user of the vehicle was restricted. It is not as though the employee had taken the vehicle unautho-risedly and since it had been given to him in the course of his employment the presumption arises that he was entitled to use it both for official and non-official purposes. Learned counsel who represents the owner did accept the position that undoubtedly if the vehicle had been put to any illegal use, then there shall be a clear exclusion of liability. On the facts of the present case the contention that the employee was using the vehicle for his private and personal use in the course of which he was giving a lift to a friend and that therefore the liability would not arise cannot be upheld. The second contention that was advanced was that the finding of the Tribunal on issue No. 3 whereby the learned Member has held that there was negligence on the part of both the truck driver as also the scooter driver is unjustified. Learned counsel submitted that the court must take judicial notice of the recklessness that is characteristically displayed by the truck drivers and one important factor, namely, evidence of pw 2, the P. C. who points out that the truck in question was movi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document