High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : P.C. Jain
Kalu - Appellant
Versus
Deep Kanwar - Respondent
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 256 of 1993
Decided On : 08/12/1996
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 - SECTION 95, RULE 133 - INSURANCE POLICY - LIABILITY OF INSURANCE COMPANY - GRATUITOUS PASSENGER - NO LIABILITY.
Fact of the Case:
A tractor driver was driving rashly and negligently, causing a passenger to fall off the tractor and be run over by the tractor and trolley, resulting in the passenger's death. The insurance company denied liability, arguing that the policy did not cover accidents involving gratuitous passengers.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the driver was driving rashly and negligently, and that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger who boarded the tractor despite objections from the driver. The court also found that the insurance policy did not cover accidents involving gratuitous passengers.
Issues: 1. Whether the driver was driving rashly and negligently. 2. Whether the deceased was a gratuitous passenger. 3. Whether the insurance policy covered accidents involving gratuitous passengers.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the insurance company was not liable because the policy did not cover accidents involving gratuitous passengers. The court relied on the Full Bench decision of the Rajasthan High Court in Santra Bai v. Prahlad, which held that insurance companies are not liable for accidents involving gratuitous passengers going on joy-rides or on their own responsibility.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of the lower court, which had exonerated the insurance company from liability.
P.C. Jain, J.-By the Judgment and award dated 35.1993, the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pratapgarh (for short ‘the Tribunar) has awarded a claim of Rs. 65,000/-in favour of the claimant-respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and directed the appellant to pay the aforesaid amount of award to the claimants within a period of two months from the date of the award, failing which, the above amount of compensation shall carry simple interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the above award.
2. The claimant-respondent Nos. 1 and 2 alleged that Bapu alias Balwantsingh was sitting on the tractor No. RJH 7590 belonging to the appellant along with its driver Respondent No. 3 Babulal. There was a trolley attached to the tractor. It is alleged that on account of the rash and negligent driving of the tractor by the driver, Bapu fell down from the tractor and was run over by the tractor and trolley, as a result of which, he sustained multiple injuries and ultimately succumbed to the injuries on the spot. The appellant and the Respondent No. 3 both contested the claim petition by denying the allegation that the tractor was being driven by the Respondent No. 3 rashly and negligently. It was alleged that Bapu despite the objection managed to board the tractor and sat by the side of the driver. He was weak and infirm and, therefore, he could not hold his balance and fell down. There was no fault of the driver resulting in the above accident.
3. The above vehicle was insured with respondent insurance company and the respondent insurance company denied the claim on the ground that the insurance company did not owe any liability in respect of an act like the present one where the factum was of unauthorisedly allowing a passenger to sit by the side of the driver.
4. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed three issues. Issue No. 1 was with regard to the negligent act of driving the tractor by the driver Respondent No. 3 and issue No. 2 related to the award of compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. Issue No. 3 related to the relief
5. Aperusal of the award of the learned Tribunal shows that the statement of Khatu Meena was relied on. It is alleged that Khatu Meena saw the accident while coming from the forest (jungle). He has stated that the driver was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently with high speed. The driver inadvertently or negligently brought the tractor on the kacha road, as a result of which, the tractor became unbalanced and uncontrollable. Bapu fell down and was run over by the tractor and the trolley.
6. After appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case and the age of the deceased as also his earning, the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 65,000/-in favour of the claimants. It may be stated that a sum of Rs. 15,000/-has already been paid by the appellant as interim award to the claimants.
7. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, the learned Counsel for the claimant-respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and the learned Counsel for the respondent insurance company and have carefully gone through the record of the case.
8. The learned Counsel for the appellant has assailed the findings of the learned Tribunal on the point of rash and negligent driving of the tractor attributed to the driver. He has submitted that the deceased boarded the tractor without any authority and sat beside the driver, which was not permissible and the driver also objected to it but he paid no heed to his request. The learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent insurance company also supported the learned Counsel for the appellant as regarding the findings on issue No. 1 recorded by the learned Tribunal.
9. I have perused the evidence and I see no reason to interfere with the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal relied on the statement of Khatu Meena who was an eyewitness of the accident. It was taken note of that after the accident, the drive
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.