Honble MUKHERJI, CJ.–This special appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated May 17, 1996 passed by a learned Single Judge of our Court in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 226/96 upholding the award dated 24.1.1996 as passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Phalodi in MACT Case No. 78/94 whereby the Tribunal passed an award of Rs. 1,08,150- in favour of the claimants and against thepresent appellant-United India Insurance Company Limited and the owner of vehicle, the respondent no.3- Gurnam Singh.

(2). Before the learned Single Judge, the appellant contend that since the deceased was a passenger in the vehicle which was a truck and the said truck was not authorised to carry any passenger on payment of any fare and the insurance policy issued by the appellant-Insurance Company did not cover such type of risks, if the passenger died as a result of an accident, even though it is assumed that itwas on account of rash and negligent act on the part of the driver, the appellant-Insurance Company could not have been made liable for the compensation as awarded by the Tribunal. It was further contended that the learned Tribunal Judge erroneously determined the income of the deceased to be Rs. 1000/- p.m.

(3). It was an admitted position that the deceased was travelling in Truck No.PJT 5923 from Phalodi to Baap and he paid his fare to the driver of the truck for his journey. It was on account of the rash and negligent driving of the truck by its driver that the accident was caused as a result whereof the deceased Sohanlal sustained injuries and he died ultimately of the said injuries.

(4). The learned Single Judge was satisfied on appreciation of the entire evi-dence on record that there was nothing to dispute the income of the deceased as assessed by the Tribunal, which could not be said to be either excessive or unreasonable. It was on the other hand based on the evidence which was led in the case. On the question as to whether there would be any liability for the Insurance Company on the basis of the insurance cover issued by it to also suchcases where there is death or injury caused to a person travelling in the goods vehicle on payment of fare, the learned Single Judge decided to rely upon a Full Bench decision of our Court in Santra Bai vs. Prahlad (1). The learned Single Judge thought that the Full Bench decision of the Bombay High Court in Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company vs. Hirabai (2) could not over-ride the Full Bench deci-sion of our Court in Santra Bai vs. Prahlad (supra) and was of the considered view that the Full Bench decision of our Court did not require a reconsideration.

(5). By filing the present special appeal, the learned advocate appearing for the appellant-Mr. Manoj Bhandari contended before us that since the deceased Sohanlal was sitting in the truck as a gratuitous passenger and he suffered an injuryand succumbed to the same, the Insurance Company was not at all liable in such cases as the insurance coverage did not envisage the risk of any damage caused to any person in a goods vehicle, more so in view of the fact that such carriage of passengers was without authorisation and it was beyond the insurance cover. The third party insurance did not cover such passengers who were allowed to travel inthe vehicle in violation of the terms and conditions of the policy.Mr. Bhandari sought to bring out the distinctive types of differences in between the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Whereas as per the definition clause in Section 2(8) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, a goods vehicle means any motor vehicles constructed or adapted for use of the carriage of goodsor any motor vehicle not so constructed or adapted when used for the carriage of goods solely or in addition to passengers, under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as per Section 2(14), a goods carriage means any motor vehicle constructed or adapted for use solely for the carriage of goods or any motor vehic

Click Here to Read the rest of this document