Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Nupur Bhati, J.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Smt. Suki Devi @ Chuki Devi, w/o Late Shri Ghewar Ram - Respondent (Claimant)
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1660/2015, S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1659/2015, S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1689/2015
Decided On : 31-08-2024
Insurance - Motor Vehicles Act - Sections 2(13), 2(14), 147 - The court interpreted the definitions of 'goods' and 'goods carriage' under the Motor Vehicles Act, determining that personal luggage does not qualify as goods, thus exonerating the insurance company from liability for passengers in a goods vehicle.
Fact of the Case:
The claimant's family was involved in an accident while traveling in a goods vehicle, leading to claims for compensation due to injuries and deaths. The insurance company contested liability, arguing the passengers were unauthorized.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the passengers were not covered under the insurance policy as they were not traveling in the capacity of owners of goods, and the items they carried were personal luggage, not goods as defined by the Act.
Issues: Whether the insurance company is liable for compensation for passengers traveling in a goods vehicle under the Motor Vehicles Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the definition of 'goods' excludes personal luggage, and since the passengers were not traveling as owners of goods, the insurance company was not liable for their injuries or deaths.
Result: The appeals by the insurance company are partly allowed, exonerating it from liability to pay compensation.
JUDGMENT :
Nupur Bhati, J.
1. These Appeals(SB CMA 1660/2015, SB CMA No. 1659/2015 and SB CMA No. 1689/2015) have been preferred by by the Appellant-insurance company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter as ‘the Act’) against the judgment and award dated 26.06.2015 (hereinafter ’impugned award’)passed by the MACT, Balotra in MAC No. 101/2013 (Rs. 47,263), MAC No. 100/2013 (Rs. 4,70,000/-) and MAC No. 99/2013(Rs. 9,03,112/-) respectively.
2. All the three appeals are being decided by this common order, however, facts of Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1689/2015 are illustratively taken for consideration.
3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 26.03.2013 Ghewar Ram, Shukveer @Sukhdeesh and Sukidevi were travelling in Bolero Camper RJ 04 GA 3410(hereinafter ‘Vehicle’) and at around 11:00 AM on Mega Highway Road from Pachpadra to Falodi Shergarh road, the vehicle, while being driven rashly and negligently by the Driver/Respondent no. 2, turtled and as a result of this accident Ghewar Ram and Shukveer @ Sukhdeesh died and Sukidevi sustained grievous injuries.
4. Thereafter, Sukidevi (hereinafter ‘Claimant/Respondent No. 1’) preferred three claim petitions under Section 166 of the Act before the learned MACT, Balotra (hereinafter ‘the learned tribunal’) - MAC No. 101/2013 for injuries sustained by her, MAC No. 100/2013 for the death of her son(Shukveer@Sukhdeesh) and MAC No. 99/2013 for the death of her husband(Ghewar Ram), seeking compensation from the driver and owner of the vehicle and insurance company jointly and severally.
5. It was averred by the Claimant/Respondent no. 1 in the claim petitions before the learned tribunal that the claimant along with her son-Shukveer and her husband-Ghewar Ram was travelling in the vehicle bearing registration no. RJ 04 GA 3410 (Bolero Camper) from Thob to Jasol with their household and other luggage in the capacity of the owner of the goods. It was alleged by the claimant/respondent no. 1 in the claim petition that driver/respondent no. 2 was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently and as a result the vehicle turned turtle.
6. It was averred by the respondent no. 2 and respondent no. 3 in their joint reply to the claim petition filed by the claimant that the respondent no. 2 was not driving the vehicle rashly and negligently and the accident happened as a result of tyre burst. It was further averred in their reply that the vehicle was insured with the insurance company(Appellant herein) at the time of the accident. It was further, averred by them that respondent no. 2 had valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident and the vehicle was being driven with valid permit and fitness.
7. It was alleged by the appellant-insurance company before the learned tribunal that total five members - Sukidevi, Ghewar Ram and Shukveer were travelling in the vehicle in capacity of unauthorized passengers. However, the vehicle was registered as goods vehicle and therefore, the insurance policy did not cover the risk of the unauthorized passengers. It was further, alleged by the appellant/insurance company before the learned tribunal that the driver was not carrying valid and effective permit with him.
8. As per the pleadings of the parties, the learned tribunal framed six issues, which are as follows:
9. The claimants examined Mrs. Sukidevi (AW1, AW2 and AW3 in three claim petitions) and exhibited 49 documents.
10. The appellant/insurance company examined Mr. Sudhir Bhandari (NAW1) and exhibited the insurance policy (Exb.A1).
11. After hearing both the parties, the learned tribunal vide its judgment and award dated 26.06.2015 allowed MAC No. 100/2013 and awarded Rs. 4,70,000/- and partly allowed rest two claim petitions and awarded Rs. 47,263 in MAC No. 101/2013, and Rs. 9,03,112/- in MAC No. 99/2013.
Aggrieved by the impugned award the instant appeals has been preferred by the Appellant/insurance company.
12. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/insuran
Passengers in a goods vehicle are not covered under the insurance policy if they are not traveling as owners of goods, as personal luggage does not qualify as goods under the Motor Vehicles Act.
The liability of the insurer under a statutory policy is restricted to indemnify the insured in respect of claims made by third parties and the owner of goods or their authorized representatives who ....
Insurers are not liable for accidents involving unauthorized passengers in goods vehicles under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act unless the passengers are the owners or authorized representative....
The insurer is not liable for compensation when claimants are unauthorized passengers without goods in the vehicle, affirming that coverage under the Motor Vehicles Act extends only to authorized rep....
Insurers are not liable for gratuitous passengers in goods vehicles under the old Motor Vehicles Act provisions, as clarified by the Supreme Court.
The court reaffirmed that insurance companies are liable to indemnify victims injured in goods vehicle accidents, even where passengers exceed policy limits, unless such violations are fundamental.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
