The court clarified the limited scope of insurance cover under the Motor Vehicles Act, emphasizing that passengers not carried for hire or reward are not automatically covered, unless specifically endorsed in the policy.

( 1 ) THE oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. has preferred this appeal against the judgment and award dated April 5, 1974, rendered by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, dharwar, in Miscellaneous (MVC) 16 of 1975.

( 2 ) MR. M. R. Patil was the elected chairman of the Hubli Co-operative Cotton Sales Society Ltd. , hubli (the "society" ). He was entitled to the society's car for his official work. On August 24, 1974, he3 was travelling from Hubli to Bangalore on Poona-Bangalore road in the society's car and by by dashing against a heap of rubbles collected at the roadside for the purpose of road repairs. Mr. Patil sustained grievous injuries and died before he was taken to the hospital. He left behind 4 sons and two daughters. Two of his sons filed a petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs. 50,000 on behalf of all the children alleging that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the car.

( 3 ) THE claim petition was resisted by the insurance company and the society on the ground that there was no negligence on the part of the car driver and the accident had occurred due to mechanical defects in the vehicle. The insurance company also took up the contention that it was, at any rate, not liable to indemnify the society since there was no relationship of master and servant between Mr. M. R. Patil and the society.

( 4 ) THE Tribunal held that the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of she car as alleged by the claimants. Mr. M. R. Patil was travelling in the car for the work of the society and he was, therefore, a the policy were comprehensive enough to include the compensation arising out of the death of any person including a passenger travelling in the car for which the owner of the car and the car and the insurance company would be liable.

( 5 ) IT is not necessary for us to consider the evidence adduced in this case as to the rash and negligent driving of he vehicle since the appeal is only by the insurance company and the contention raised, as it ought to be, is only as to the liability to indemnify the society.

( 6 ) COUNSELS on both sides before us do not and indeed could not support the view taken by the tribunal as to the risk to Mr. M. R. Patil under the policy, in view of the decision of the Supreme court in Pushbabai Parshottam udeshi v. Ranjit Ginning and Pressing Co. P. Ltd. , AIR 1977 SC 1935. In that case, the Supreme Court, while examining the scope of sections 95 (1) (a) and 95 (1) (b) (i) of the Motor Vehicles Act, has observed at page 1746: "section 95 (1) (a) and 95 (1) (b) (i) of the Motor Vehicles Act adopted the provisions of the english Road Traffic Act, 1960, and excluded the liability of the insurance company regarding the risk to the passengers. Section 95 provides that a policy of insurance must be a policy which insures the persons against any liability which may be incurred by him in respect of death of , or bodily injury to, any person or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of he use of the vehicle in a public place. The plea that the words `third party' are wide enough to cover all persons except the person and the insurer is negatived as the insurance cover is not available to the passengers which is made clear by the proviso to the sub-section which provides that a policy shall not be required :

` (ii) except where the vehicle is a vehicle in which passengers are carried for hire or reward or by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment, to cover liability in respect of the death of, or bodily injury to, persons being carried in or upon or entering or mounting or alighting from the vehicle at the time of the occurrence of the event out of which a claim arises. ' therefore, it is not required that a policy of insurance should cover risk to the passengers who are not carried for hire or reward. As under section 95, the risk to a passenger in a vehicle who is not carried for hire or reward

Click Here to Read the rest of this document