Back
2010 Supreme(Raj) 212
2010(1) CCR 634 (Bom.)
(Bombay High Court)
National Insurance Co. Vs. Dayanand Margeppa Pedde (Bhosale, J.)
HON'BLE D.B. BHOSALE, J.
HON'BLE R.Y. GANOO, J.
National Insurance Co. Ltd.
Versus
Dayanand Margeppa Pedde & Ors.
First Appeal No.1411 of 2004, decided on 16.02.2010
S.S. Bhide, for Appellant;
D.D. Shinde, for Respondents
Headnote:Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Secs. 142, 147 & 173 — Liability of insurance company to pay compensation — Requirement of policies and limits of liability — 100% disability sustained by owner of goods — Tribunal directed the insurance company and owner of vehicle to pay total compensation of Rs. 28,17,000/- — 24 years injured was doing transport business — Offending truck was hired for carrying goods from Mumbai to Latur — Plea of Insurer that claimant was travelling as "authorised non fare paying passenger" with his goods, therefore, he would be entitled for compensation to the extent of Rs. 20000/- — Insurer also contended that claimant was travelling as an unauthorised passenger and neither hire the truck nor having any goods with him — Held — It appears from evidence on record that insurance company had agreed to indemnify the insured against his legal liability other than liability u/Sec. 147 of the Act by accepting additional premium prior to amendment of 1994 — It is settled law that policy can always cover higher risk to third party on payment of additional premium — Right of claimant to seek compensation would not get affected by provisions of Sec. 147 prior to amendment of 1994 — Liability of insurance company is unlimited — Finding recorded by tribunal is not required interference in appeal. (Paras 39 to 43)
Appeal dismissed.
eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1988] /kkjk;sa 142] 147 ,oa 173 & izfrdj Hkqxrku djus dk chek daiuh dk nkf;Ro & ikWfyfl;ksa dh vis{kk,a rFkk nkf;Ro dh lhek,a & eky ds Lokeh dks 100 izfr'kr fu%'kDrrk gqbZ & vf/kdj.k us chek daiuh ,oa okgu ds Lokeh dks 28]17]000@- #i;s dk dqy izfrdj Hkqxrku djus dk funsZ'k fn;k & 24 o"khZ; vkgr ifjogu O;olk; dj jgk Fkk & fyIr okgu eqEcbZ ls ykrqj eky ogu djus gsrq HkkM+s ij fy;k x;k Fkk & chekdrkZ dk vfHkokd~ fd nkosnkj vius eky ds lkFk ^izkf/kd`r fcuk fdjk;k Hkqxrku ;k=h* ds :i esa ;k=k dj jgk Fkk vr% og 20]000@- #i;s ds foLrkj rd izfrdj gsrq gdnkj gksxk & chekdrkZ us ;g Hkh izfrokn fd;k fd nkosnkj ,d vizkf/kd`r ;k=h ds :i esa ;k=k dj jgk Fkk ,oa u Vªd HkkM+s ij fd;k u gh mlds lkFk dksbZ eky Fkk & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & vfHkys[k ij lk{; ls ;g izrhr gksrk gS fd chek daiuh 1994 ds la'kks/ku ls iwoZ vfrfjDr izhfe;e Lohdkj djrs gq, vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 147 ds vUrxZr nkf;Ro ds vykok chfer ds fo:) mlds fof/kd nkf;Ro dh {kfriwfrZ djus gsrq lger Fkk & ;g LFkkfir fof/k gS fd vfrfjDr izhfe;e Hkqxrku ij ikWfylh ges'kk r`rh; i{kdkj dk mPpre tksf[ke vko`r dj ldrk gS & nkosnkj dk izfrdj ekax dk vf/kdkj 1994 ds la'kks/ku ls iwoZ ds /kkjk 147 ds izko/kkuksa ij izHkko ugha Mkysxk & chek daiuh dk nkf;Ro vlhfer gS & vf/kdj.k }kjk vfHkysf[kr fu"d"kZ dh vihy esa gLr{ksi dh vko';drk ugha gSA ¼in la[;k 39 ls 43½
vihy [kkfjt dhA
2. The facts, sans unnecessary details, are as follows: the claimant, who was hardly 23-24 years old at the time of accident, was a resident of Latur. He was in transport business and was also working as commission agent at Latur. He was also dealing in salt business. At the relevant time he had gone to Mumbai in connection with his business. The offending vehicle i.e truck no.MTQ 9031 (for short “the truck”) was attached to Kiran transport at Mumbai. On 18.2.1990, according to the claimant, he hired the truck for carrying paper/card-board boxes (for short “the goods”) from Mumbai to Latur. He was also to load salt bags at Solapur for carrying them to Latur. The claimant was also travelling in the truck alongwith the goods. The truck was to go to Latur via Solapur. While the truck was near Lonavala, on Mumbai-Pune road, at about 4.30-5.00 am, according to the claimant, due to rash and negligent driving, it met with an accident. In the accident the claimant sustained serious injuries, and suffered 100% permanent disability.
3. The claimant, on 31.7.1990 filed a claim petition and prayed for compensation of Rs.7 Lacs from the Insurance company and respondent nos.2 and 3. Thereafter the claimant amended the petition on 22.8.2002 and enhanced his claim from Rs.7 Lacs to Rs.25 Lacs. The insurance company filed their written statement dated 24.8.1992/30.10.1992, and opposed the claim contending that the claimant was travelling in the truck as unauthorised/gratuitous passenger. It was further contended that under section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the Act of 1988”), prior to the 1994 amendment, the insured was not obligated to get his vehicle insured for any passenger like the claimant, and, therefore, the insurance company was not legally liable to pay any compensation to such person. In the alternative, the insurance company also contended that in case it is held that the claimant was travelling as “authorised non fare paying passenger” with his goods, he would be at the most entitled for compensation to the extent of Rs.20,000/-. After the amendment was carried out by the claimant the insurance company did not file additional written statement.
4. Before the Tribunal, the claimant, in support of his claim, examined himself and two doctors, namely, Dr.Dilip Deshpande, attached to Vivekanand Hospital at Latur, and Dr.Sharad Ratnaprakash Jyoti, the Orthopaedic Surgeon, attached to Sancheti Hospital, at Pune. The insurance company did not examine any witness. The Tribunal, after having considered the entire material/evidence on record, held that the driver of the truck was driving the truck in a rash and negligent manner at the relevant time, and as a result thereof he lost control and the truck met with an accident causing serious injuries to the claimant. The Tribunal, held that the claimant is entitled for the total compensation of Rs.28,17,000/-.
5. It would be relevant to state few undisputed/admitted facts. When the accident occured the claimant was in the truck. Respondent no.2 was the owner of the truck, while respondent no.3 was its driver. The appellant was insurer of the truck and the insurance policy was subsisting on the date of accident. In the accident, the claimant sustained serious injuries leading to 100% disability.
6. It is against this backdrop,
