Back
2024 Supreme(Cal) 967
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.
Sri Krishna Mohan Ghosh – Petitioner
Versus
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. – Respondents
FMA No. 1207 of 2021 (FMAT 1149 of 2014)
Decided On : 13-08-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Saidur Rahaman, Mr. Niranjan Maity.
For the Respondent: Ms. Gopa Das Mukherjee.
IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that gratuitous passengers in goods vehicles can still claim compensation, and insurance companies may be directed to pay and recover from vehicle owners under certain circumstances.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles - Claimant's Rights - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 166 - The court interpreted the provisions regarding compensation for injuries sustained by gratuitous passengers in a goods vehicle, emphasizing the need for adherence to insurance policy conditions and the implications of negligence.
Fact of the Case:
The claimant was injured in an accident involving a goods vehicle while returning from a marriage ceremony. The driver was found to be negligent, causing severe injuries and permanent disablement to the claimant.
Finding of the Court:
The tribunal initially dismissed the claim, stating that the claimant was a gratuitous passenger in a goods vehicle, which violated insurance policy terms. The court later found that the claimant was entitled to compensation based on established legal principles.
Issues: Whether the claimant, as a gratuitous passenger in a goods vehicle, is entitled to compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act despite the violation of insurance policy conditions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that while the claimant was a gratuitous passenger, the insurance company could be directed to pay compensation and recover it from the vehicle owner, emphasizing the need for justice in light of the claimant's severe injuries.
Result: The appeal is allowed, and the tribunal's judgment is set aside, awarding the claimant compensation of Rs. 5,87,869/- with interest.
JUDGMENT :
Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.
1. The appeal has been preferred by the claimant against the judgment and award dated 30.06.2014 passed by Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, 3rd Court, Alipore, District South 24 Parganas in MAC Case No. 17 of 2013, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
2. FACTS :-
“On 02.12.2002 while the victim Krishna Mohan Ghosh along with Ashoka Ghosh, Bhim Ghosh and Biswajit 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 pedestrains namely Krishna Mohan Ghosh, Ashoka Ghosh, Bhim & 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 attending while driving the said vehicle at the material time. The injured Krishna Mohan 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 appear to contest the case. However, the O.P. no.2/The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. appeared and filed Written Statement to contest the case. In the Written Statement, the O.P. 2 disputed the statements of the claimant and further 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 20.03.10 to contest the case on all the grounds that are available to the insured.
4. The claimants examined 10 (Ten) witnesses and proved relevant documents, which were marked Exhibit 1 to 33.
5. The Insurance Company/O.P. examined one witness on their behalf and proved documents marked Exhibit A to C.
6. The tribunal finally held as follows :-
“MAC Case No. 17 of 2013
Dated: 30.06.2014
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 judgment 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 are disposed of accordingly.
As a result, the case fails.
Hence it is accordingly,
Ordered
that the instant case is dismissed on contest against the O.P. no.2 and ex-parte against the O.P. no.1 but without costs.
The claimant is not found entitled to get any compensation.
Sd/-
Judge,
M.A.C Tribuna, 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 a
