The main legal point established in the judgment is that unless it is established that a person traveled as an owner of the goods or falls within specific categories, the Insurance Company cannot be made liable for the passenger in a goods vehicle.

( 1 ) THE Insurance Company is in appeal being aggrieved by the liability being put on it by the MACT, Bangalore City, to satisfy the award amount of Rs. 37,920/- in favour of the claimant and the main ground urged in the appeal is that the claimant travelled as a passenger in a goods vehicle and therefore, the risk is not covered by the policy in question.

( 2 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the evidence on record. The appellant's counsel Shri Jaiprakash submitted that it is not in dispute that the claimant travelled in the lorry in question as a gratuitous passenger and this is evident from the very evidence of the claimant himself and therefore, the Tribunal could not have put the liability on the Insurance Company. On the other hand, the learned counsel for Respondent No. 4, i. e. owner of the lorry submitted that the claimant travelled in the lorry in question because the lorry driver was new to Bangalore and was looking for an address and to help the lorry driver, the claimant being a Traffic Policeman, got into the lorry and on the way, the accident occurred when the said lorry bearing No. KA-17 1931 collided with the engine No. KA-01-G 42. Therefore, it cannot be said that the claimant was a passenger in a goods vehicle and as such, the liability put on the appellant-Insurance Company by the Tribunal cannot be termed as erroneous in law.

( 3 ) LEARNED counsel Sri Shripad Shastri, for respondent-claimant, on his part submitted that, though the claimant travelled in the lorry in question, he was travelling in the said lorry in the capacity of a 'police officer' and as he was asked to show the address the respondent-claimant, therefore, had to assist the driver in showing the address and as such, it is to be deemed that the respondent-claimant was travelling in the vehicle in question as a 'police officer on duty' and having regard to rule 100 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles rules, 1989 (for short 'rules 1989'), the Insurance Company cannot escape its liability. In support of the said submission, learned counsel placed/eliance on a decision of this court in the case of United India Insurance co. Ltd. v. Smt. Chandramma and others (ILR 1999 Kar 523) : (1998 AIHC 1996) to contend that in the said decision it was held that where it was found that two Police Constables after completing their duty, were proceeding towards the Police Station and when the accident occurred in between the two vehicles, the liability of the insurer cannot be avoided. It was also submitted that a plain reading of section 147 of the Rules 1989 would also make it clear that the liability will arise in respect of 'any person' including the owner of the goods or his authorised representative and therefore the case of the claimant herein comes within the expression 'any person' and as such, the Insurance Company cannot be absolved of its liability.

( 4 ) IT is settled law that in respect of a person travelling in a goods vehicle, unless it is established that the said person travelled as a owner of the goods or come within any of the categories mentioned in Section 147 (1) (b) (i), the question of making the Insurance Company liable, will not arise. It is also settled law that in respect of a person travelling as a gratuitous passenger in a goods vehicle, the insurance Company cannot be made liable. This is the legal position emerging from various decisions of the Apex Court including the decision in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Bommithi Subbhayamma and Others (2005 ACJ 721) (SC ). In the case of Oriental insurance Co. Ltd. v. Meena Variyal and Others (2007 ACJ 1284) : (2007 (3) AIR Kar R 437), which is referred to by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company, the Apex court while dealing with the scope of Section 147 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has observed at paras 10 and 11 thus :

"10. Chapter XI of the Act bears a heading "insurance of Motor Vehicles Against Third party Risks". The definit

Click Here to Read the rest of this document