Back
2024 Supreme(Raj) 838
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
NUPUR BHATI, J.
Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Jethmal Singh S/o Kishan Singh – Respondent
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2811 of 2019, S.B. Cross Objection (Civil) No. 243 of 2020
Decided On : 01-10-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Vishal Singhal.
For the Respondents: Vineet Dave, R.J. Poonia.
IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that an authorized representative of goods remains covered under the insurance policy even when not physically carrying goods at the time of an accident.
Headnote:
Insurance - Motor Vehicles Act - Sections 147, 173, 166 - The court interpreted the liability of the insurance company under the Motor Vehicles Act, emphasizing the coverage of authorized representatives and the conditions under which compensation is awarded, ultimately affirming the tribunal's decision.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased, while returning from unloading goods, died in an accident. The claimants sought compensation from the insurance company, which contested liability, arguing the deceased was a gratuitous passenger.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the deceased was an authorized representative of the goods, despite the absence of goods at the time of the accident, and upheld the tribunal's award of compensation.
Issues: Whether the deceased was an authorized representative of the owner of the goods or a gratuitous passenger, and whether siblings are entitled to compensation for consortium.
Ratio Decidendi: The deceased was deemed an authorized representative of the goods, and the insurance policy covered his liability, affirming the tribunal's findings on compensation.
Result: The appeal by the insurance company is dismissed, and the cross-objection for enhanced compensation is partly allowed.
JUDGMENT :
NUPUR BHATI, J.
1. Both, the Civil Misc. Appeal, S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2811/2019 as well as the cross-objection, S.B. Cross Objection (Civil) No. 243/2020 are being decided by this common order, however facts of S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2811/2019 are illustratively taken for consideration.
2. The present civil misc. appeal has been filed by the appellant-Insurance Company, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘MV Act’) assailing the judgment and award passed by the Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Barmer (Raj.) (‘Tribunal’) dated 17.07.2019 in MAC Case No. 214/07, whereby the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the claim filed by the respondent-claimants under Section 166, while awarding Rs. 8,43,760/- with interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of filing the claim, while fastening the liability upon the appellant-Insurance Company.
3. The present cross-objection has been filed by the respondent-claimants under Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’) assailing the award passed by the learned Tribunal whereby the respondent-claimants have been awarded a meager compensation of Rs. 8,43,760/- with interest @ 7% p.a. from 25.09.2017, thus praying for enhancement of the award passed by the learned Tribunal.
4. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that, the deceased, Dharampal Singh along with Chainaram (AW2) were going to Khara on 21.06.2017 on a Bolero Camper bearing no. RJ-04-GA-4311 to unload goods and after unloading the goods in Khara, when they were returning to Barmer, the vehicle met with an accident on account of which both Jethmal and Chainaram sustained injuries and subsequently, Dharampal Singh died. Thereafter the dependents of the deceased filed a claim before the learned Tribunal, claiming a sum of Rs. 89,90,000/- as compensation on account of the death of deceased.
5. In its reply to the claim petition the respondent-non-claimants denied the averments made in the claim petition while the appellant-Insurance Company submitted that the vehicle was being driven in violation of the terms of the Insurance Policy, at the time of the accident.
6. After hearing the parties, the learned Tribunal framed four issues which are as follows:
7. In support of the claim petition, 2 witnesses, namely Jethmal Singh, father of the deceased (AW1) and Chainaram (AW2) were examined and 13 documents were produced. On behalf of the Insurance Company, statement of one Rajesh Bishnoi was recorded and one document i.e. Insurance Policy (Ex.9) was produced in evidence.
8. After hearing the parties, the learned Tribunal fastened the liability upon the appellant-Insurance Company while observing that the deceased was not a gratitious passenger traveling in the offending vehicle and also, there was no violation of the terms of the Insurance Policy inasmuch as the Insurance Policy stipulated the seating capacity of the offending vehicle to be 4+1 and at the time of accident only Chainaram and the deceased were traveling with the driver, thus, abiding by the terms of the Insurance Policy. Learned Tribunal also awarded a compensation to the tune of Rs. 8,43,760/- with an interest @ 7% from 25.09.2017. Aggrieved of the judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal, the appellant-Insurance Company has preferred this appeal.
9. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant/insurance company that the deceased was not employed on the vehicle but was only engaged as casual labourer to unload the goods.
10. It is also submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant/ insurance company that the insurance policy in the present case is a “Goods Carrying Commercial Vehicle-Public Carrier Other Than Three Wheelers Package Policy” where the premium was only charged for the owner, driver and cleaner of the vehicle. He further, submitted that risk of gratuitous passenger was not covered under the insurance policy.
11. It is further submitted by the learned couns
