The owner of the goods who has hired the vehicle for transport of his goods and who is a passenger on the vehicle at the time of the said transport is required to be covered by the insurance policy required to be taken by the owner of the goods vehicle in question.

Headnote:
The owner of the goods who has hired the vehicle for transport of his goods and who is a passenger on the vehicle at the time of the said transport is required to be covered by the insurance policy required to be taken by the owner of the goods vehicle in question.
Fact of the Case:

The claimant had taken on hire a truck belonging to respondent No. 2. The truck met with an accident owing to the negligence of the driver of the truck belonging to respondent No. 1. The claimant was injured seriously so such so that he was hospitalised for a period of about one month and a half and was discharged only after his left leg had been amputated below the knee. The claimant filed an application for compensation before the Accidents. Tribunal for recovery of compensation totally amounting to Rs. 77,500/-. The Tribunal found that the collision between the two vehicles was the direct result of the gross negligence on the part of the driver of truck 'A' . He absolved the driver of truck 'B' of negligence. As regards the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal held that damages, both general as well as special, to the extent of Rs. 33,000/- were proved by the claimant. Hence, he passed an award for the said sum of Rs. 33,000/- in favour of the claimant together with costs which were quantified at Rs. 200/-. However, the Tribunal further held that the policy of insurance given by respondent No. 4 was not required to cover the risk to life or body of the owner of the goods, who had hired the truck for transportation of the goods and who was the passenger in the truck. A decree for the said sum of Rs. 33,000/- was, therefore, made executable by the Tribunal against respondent No. 2 and against no one else.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the owner of the goods who has hired the vehicle for transport of his goods and who is a passenger on the vehicle at the time of the said transport is required to be covered by the insurance policy required to be taken by the owner of the goods vehicle in question. The court further held that the claimant is entitled to an additional amount of Rs. 7200/- from respondent No. 2 and the total amount he becomes entitled from respondent No. 2 is Rs. 40,000/-. The court also held that the claimant is entitled to recover the said amount from respondent No. 4 as well and hence the decree can be executed against respondent No. 4 as well.
Issues: Whether the owner of the goods who has hired the vehicle for transport of his goods and who is a passenger on the vehicle at the time of the said transport is required to be covered by the insurance policy required to be taken by the owner of the goods vehicle in question.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the owner of the goods who has hired the vehicle for transport of his goods and who is a passenger on the vehicle at the time of the said transport is required to be covered by the insurance policy required to be taken by the owner of the goods vehicle in question. The court reasoned that when a hirer of a goods vehicle for carriage of his goods is travelling by the said vehicle in connection with the carriage of the goods with the consent of the driver or owner of the goods vehicle in question, he must be deemed to be a passenger on the vehicle for reward within the meaning of Clause (ii) of a proviso to section 95(1) of the Act and hence the tortious liability of the owner towards him must be covered by the insurance policy contemplated by the said section.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed. The claimant was held entitled to an additional amount of Rs. 7200/- from respondent No. 2 and the total amount he becomes entitled from respondent No. 2 is Rs. 40,000/-. The claimant was also held entitled to recover the said amount from respondent No. 4 as well and hence the decree can be executed against respondent No. 4 as well. The decretal amount shall carry interest the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of the application till the date of satisfaction.

Judgment

SHARAD MANOHAR, J.:---The question involved in this appeal is of quite some importance. It relates :

(a) to the inter-action of the provisions of section 95(1)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereafter, the Act), and of Rule 118 of the Bombay Motor Vehicles Rules;

(b) and their impact on the liability of the Insurance Company for the death or bodily injury to the hirer of a goods vehicle when he is a passenger in the same vehicle.

The Accidents Claim Tribunal has taken the view that when a person hires a goods vehicle for transport of his goods and when he is a passenger on the vehicles, then the Insurance policy taken by the owner of the goods vehicle need not cover the loss caused to such passenger by virtue of the negligence of his driver and hence the Insurance Company is not liable to such passenger for payment of compensation to him. We are required to examine the correctness of this view.

2. The facts of the case are more or less admitted. When some of the facts are in dispute, we will indicate the nature of the dispute at the appropriate place. The facts are as follows :

The appellant (who will be referred to hereafter as the 'claimant') had taken on hire a truck belonging to respondent No. 2. That was Motor Lorry No. MRT 3987. For the sake of convenience, we will call this truck as 'Truck A'. It is not disputed that the truck was hired by the claimant in Bombay and it was being taken by the claimant from Bombay to Thane for picking scrap materials from Thane to Bombay. The vehicle was being driven by the driver who was the employee of respondent No. 2. The claimant was accompanying the driver and was sitting next to him. As the vehicle 'A' was being driven, at a speed which was evidently excessive, it collided against another Motor Lorry No. MRR 7557 at a point on Bombay-Agra road at Bhandup. The latter truck coming from the opposite direction, from north to south, belonged to respondent No. 1 and was being driven by his driver. One Shirke, who was the cleaner, was sitting next to the driver in that vehicle. For the sake of convenience, we will call the said latter vehicle as 'Vehicle B'. It is to be noted that it was not a case of a head-on conllision between the two vehicles 'A' and 'B'. The facts found are, and about these facts there exist no dispute any longer, that vehicle 'A' swerved right, suddenly, while it was being driven at the excessive speed along the Bombay. Agra Road and as it swerved right the vehicle 'B' coming from the opposite direction had to swerve left. But this protective swerving by the truck 'B' was of no avail. The collision could not be avoided. This was principally because vehicle 'A' was being driven on the wrong side and was very much to the right of the road and in addition to this, it swerved to its right even further. Vehicle 'A' brushed against the right side of vehicle 'B' and damaged it extensively. When both the vehicles collided and stopped, vehicle 'B' in fact mounted the eastern foot-path on the road so much so that both its wheels rested on the foot path. The driver of vehicle 'B' received serious injuries. Even the cleaner on the said vehicle got injuries. So far as the driver of Vehicle 'A' . in which the claimant was the passenger, was concerned the driver escaped uphurt but in the said truck one more person besides the claimant was travelling; that person got killed by virtue of the said collision whereas the claimant, with whom we are concerned in the present appeal was injured seriously so such so that he was hospitalised for a period of about one month and a half and was discharged only after his left leg had been amputated below the knee. It may be mentioned here that the driver of the vehicle was prosecuted and even convicted in criminal proceedings. The driver of the other vehicle 'B' was not even prosecuted but in the criminal proceedings against the driver of vehicle 'A ' he was one of the witnesses for the prosecution.

It was in these circumstances that the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document