An insurance company is not liable to pay compensation for an accident if the policy excludes coverage for persons traveling in the vehicle at the time of the accident.

S.Sarwar Ali, J.

1. Dhan Bahadur Thappa was the unfortunate victim of an accident in which he lost his life. His widow Manu Maya Thapa on behalf of herself and her minor children filed an application under Sec.110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Act No. IV of 1939) [hereinafter referred to as the Act] claiming compensation of Rs. 39,080/. The application has been allowed in part by the Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Singhbhum, Chaibasa and compensation to the extent of Rs. 10,000.00 has been awarded. The appellant was a party to the claim case being the owner of the motor vehicle which had caused the accident. Respondent No. 4, New India Assurance Company Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as the Insurance Company) was also before the Tribunal being the insurer of the vehicle. In this Court the owner Sardar Mohan Singh Bedi is the appellant. A cross-objection has been filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3, the claimants before the Claims Tribunal.

2. On 18-6-1962 as a result of an accident caused by a public carrier bearing No. 5345 owned by the appellant Sardar Mohan Singh Bedi, Dhan Bahadur Thapa was crushed to death. An application under Sec.110-A of the Act was presented before the Claims Tribunal, as then constituted. In the application filed it was stated as against column No. 10 that it was not known whether the deceased was travelling by the vehicle involved in the accident The details of the accident have not been given in this application. The claim as made, as already stated, was for Rupees 39,080/-.

3. Cause was shown both by the owner of the truck as also by the Insurance Company. The owner stated that he was in no way responsible for the accident or liable to pay any damages, and that it was the Insurance Company which was, if at all, liable. In paragraph 2 of the show cause it was stated "that the deceased had no business to be in the vehicle and if he was in the vehicle he was a mere trespasser." It was further stated that the deceased was in a drunken condition and the accident had taken place due to the negligence of the deceased.

4. The insurance company apart from challenging its liability and quantum of damages as claimed specifically stated that it was not liable inasmuch as, the vehicle in question was used for carrying passengers for hire or reward though the vehicle was not covered by the permit to ply for hire or reward. It was further stated that the deceased was at the time of accident being carried as a passenger and the owner was thus acting in breach of the road permit. The Insurance company further stated in the show cause that it will rely on the various clauses of the insurance policy to negative its liability.

5. The application was filed before the Judicial Commissioner of Ranchi on 10-8-1962. Order No. 17 dated 30-7-1963 states that the case relates to Singh-bhum District and that by Government notification of 19-7-1963 the jurisdiction of the Judicial Commissioner at Ranchi had ceased over cases of other districts and that the matter should be referred to High Court. Order No. 30 dated 19-8-1964 indicates that the records were received by the District Judge, Chaibassa from the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi for disposal. This is how, although the claim petition was filed at Ranchi, it came to be decided by the District Judge of Singhbhum.

6. Various issues were framed by the Tribunal in paragraph 6 of its order and need not be mentioned here. The Tribunal on a consideration of the materials on the record came to the conclusion (a) that the accident in which the deceased lost his life took place due to rashness and negligence of the driver of the truck; (b) that Dhan Bahadur Thapa was travelling at the time of the accident in the truck; (c) that the said Dhan Bahadur Thapa was going in the truck as a passenger for hire and reward; (d) that the liability was that of the owner and not of the Insurance Company and (e) that the claimants namely, respondents 1 to 3 in this case w