Back
2024 Supreme(Cal) 961
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.
Sri Ashoke Ghosh – Petitioner
Versus
The New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Anr. – Respondents
FMA No. 1220 of 2021 (FMAT 1147 of 2014)
Decided On : 19-08-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Saidur Rahaman, Mr. Niranjan Maity.
For the Respondent: Ms. Gopa Das Mukherjee.
IMPORTANT POINT
Gratuitous passengers in goods vehicles can claim compensation for injuries caused by negligent driving, despite policy violations.
Headnote:
Negligence - Motor Accident Claims - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 166 - The court interpreted the provisions regarding liability and compensation for injuries sustained by gratuitous passengers in a goods vehicle, ultimately allowing the appeal and awarding compensation.
Fact of the Case:
The claimant was injured in an accident caused by a vehicle driven in a rash and negligent manner while he was a pedestrian. The tribunal initially dismissed the claim, stating the claimant was a gratuitous passenger in a goods vehicle.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the tribunal's conclusion about the claimant being a gratuitous passenger was incorrect. The claimant was entitled to compensation due to the negligence of the vehicle's driver.
Issues: Whether the claimant was a gratuitous passenger in a goods vehicle and entitled to compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the claimant's status as a gratuitous passenger did not preclude him from receiving compensation for injuries sustained due to the negligent driving of the vehicle.
Result: The appeal is allowed, and the tribunal's judgment is set aside, awarding the claimant compensation.
JUDGMENT :
Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.
1. The present appeal has been preferred by the claimant against the original order and award dated 30.06.2014 passed by Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, 3rd Court at Alipore, District – South 24 Parganas, in M.A.C. Case No. 34 of 2009/ M.A.C.C. No. 18 of 2013, under Sections 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
2. FACTS :-
“On 02.12.2002, while the victim Ashoke Ghosh along with Bhim Ghosh, Krishna Mohan Ghosh and Biswajit Ghosh was returning after attending a marriage ceremony (Bhowbhat) on foot following the extreme western side non-metal led portion of the Diamond Harbour Jagannathpore road near Jagannathpore more, the driver of the offending vehicle bearing registration number WB-19A-5739 was proceeding with his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and thereby dashed against the Pedestrians namely Krishna Mohan Ghosh, Ashoke Ghosh, Bhim Ghosh and Biswajit Ghosh and they sustained severe injuries on their person causing permanent disablement. Rash, reckless and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle (Tata 407) was the sole and direct cause for this pathetic accident which could have been easily avoided had the driver been not reckless, rash and negligent and did not fail to take reasonable care and attention while driving the said vehicle at the material time. The injured Ashoke Ghosh had an active life till the date of accident but after the accident and owing to sustaining permanent disablement he has lost his active life and is unable to lead a normal life. He has become completely dependent on the assistance and help of others and has sustained immense pecuniary loss besides suffering from perpetual pain, shock and mental agony.”
3. O.P. no.1, the owner of the offending vehicle, did not contest the case. However, the O.P. No. 2/The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. appeared and filed Written Statement and contested the case. In the Written Statement the O.P. No. 2 disputed the statements of the claimant and further specifically stated that the Claimant himself was travelling in a goods vehicles in violation of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy and therefore he could not take the advantage of any wrong committed by him and consequently the O.P. no. 2 was not liable for any compensation towards the injuries sustained by the claimant, if any, and therefore, a prayer was made for dismissal of the case. On its application filed U/s 170 of the M.V. Act, 1988 the O.P. no. 2 was also permitted by order dated 16.03.2010 to contest the case on all the grounds that are available to the insured.
4. The claimants (injured) examined 6 (Six) witnesses including the doctor (P.W.2) and relevant documents were proved and marked Exhibits 1 to 12.
5. The Insurance Company/O.P. examined one witness (Driver of the offending vehicle) proved documents Marked Ext. A, B, C.
6. The tribunal finally held as follows :-
“M.A.C.C. No.-18 of 2013
Dated:-30th June, 2014
……………Therefore it is clear that the claimant and others were in the offending vehicle as gratuitous passengers of a Goods vehicle and they met with an accident which caused them injuries and accordingly in view of the judgments of the Hon?ble Supreme Court of India as relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the O.P. No. 2 they are not entitled for compensation from the Insurance Co. (O.P. No 2) as they willingly, knowingly and willfully had travelled in the goods vehicle and clearly in order to gain some compensation had filed the present case by concealing the truth and the real facts.
Accordingly, in the light of the discussions as made above the Claimant is not found entitled to any compensation.
All the issues as disposed of accordingly.
As a result, the case fails.
Hence it is, accordingly.
Ordered
that the instant case is dismissed on contest……………
Sd/
Judge, MAC Tribunal
3rd Court, Alipore”
7. Being aggrieved the present appeal has been preferred on the following ground :-
That the judgment under appeal is not in accordance with law as
