Back
Orissa High Court
P. K. MOHANTI, Actg. C. J. AND G. B. PATNAIK, J.
Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Ltd. and etc. - Appellant
Versus
Smt. Narayanibai - Respondents
Misc. Appeal Nos. 54 and 58 of 1977
Decided On : 20 August 1983
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - SECTION 95 - INSURANCE POLICY - LIABILITY OF INSURER - OWNER OF GOODS ACCOMPANYING GOODS IN GOODS VEHICLE - WHETHER A PASSENGER CARRIED FOR HIRE OR REWARD - INTERPRETATION OF CLAUSE (II) OF THE PROVISO TO SUB-SEC.(1) OF SEC.95 - JURISDICTION OF CLAIMS TRIBUNAL - TRANSFER OF CASE FROM ONE TRIBUNAL TO ANOTHER - VALIDITY - COMPENSATION - ASSESSMENT - PRINCIPLES.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased, Radhashyam Gupta, was travelling in a goods vehicle carrying his goods when the vehicle met with an accident, resulting in his death. His family members filed a claim for compensation under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The Tribunal found the driver negligent and awarded compensation of Rs. 1,01,200/-. The insurer and the owner of the vehicle filed appeals challenging the Tribunal's decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the owner of the goods accompanying the goods in a goods vehicle is a passenger who was being carried for hire or reward. The court relied on the decisions of the Karnataka and Bombay High Courts, which held that the consideration paid by the owner of the goods for the transport of the goods is a composite consideration, which includes the consideration for his own carriage. The court also held that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to decide the claim case, as the State Government had validly transferred the case from the Tribunal at Mayurbhanj to the Tribunal at Puri.
Issues: 1. Whether the owner of the goods accompanying the goods in a goods vehicle is a passenger carried for hire or reward within the meaning of clause (ii) of the proviso to sub-sec.(1) of Sec.95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939? 2. Whether the Tribunal at Puri had jurisdiction to decide the claim case, which originally filed before the Tribunal at Mayurbhanj? 3. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was excessive?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the owner of the goods accompanying the goods in a goods vehicle is a passenger carried for hire or reward within the meaning of clause (ii) of the proviso to sub-sec.(1) of Sec.95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The court relied on the decisions of the Karnataka and Bombay High Courts, which held that the consideration paid by the owner of the goods for the transport of the goods is a composite consideration, which includes the consideration for his own carriage. 2. The court held that the Tribunal at Puri had jurisdiction to decide the claim case, as the State Government had validly transferred the case from the Tribunal at Mayurbhanj to the Tribunal at Puri. The court relied on the provisions of Section 110 (4) of the Act, which empowers the State Government to regulate the distribution of business among two or more Claims Tribunals constituted for any area. 3. The court held that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was not excessive. The court considered the evidence on the deceased's income and his contribution to the family, and found that the Tribunal had made reasonable deductions for various eventualities and uncertainty of life.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeals filed by the insurer and the owner of the vehicle, and confirmed the decision of the Tribunal.
Judgement
P. K. MOHANTI, Actg., C. J.:- These two miscellaneous first appeals under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (to be referred to as the Act ) arise out of a common order of the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal (to be referred to as the Tribunal ). Puri fixing the liability of the insurer at Rs. 50,000/- out of the total compensation of Rs. 1,01,200/- and the owner of the goods vehicle bearing No. WGB 2835 for payment of the balance amount to respondents 1 to 7. The appellant in M. A. No. 54/77 is the insurer and the appellant in M. A. No. 58/77 is the owner of the vehicle. Respondents 1 to 7 in both the appeals are the claimants.
2. Respondents 1 to 7 filed an application under Section 110-A of the Act claiming compensation of Rs. 1,55,000/-for the death of one Radhashyam Gupta, the husband of respondent No. 1 and the father of respondents Nos. 2 to 7, arising out of a motor accident which took place on 9-12-73 while he (the deceased) was travelling in the said goods vehicle from Calcutta to Karanjia with his goods. The accident occurred at 9.30 p. m. on the Karanjia-Jasipur road near Kalikapur when the vehicle went off the road and dashed against a big Sal tree. The vehicle was completely damaged and the deceased who was sitting on the front seat died instantaneously at the spot. The driver and the other occupants of the vehicle also sustained injuries. The driver succumbed to the injuries on 12-12-73. It was alleged that the road at the place of accident was 20 to 25 feet wide and slopping towards Karanjia. Due to incessant rain the road was muddy, but the driver drove the vehicle rashly and negligently and did not take necessary caution for driving the vehicle on a muddy road. The deceased was a healthy man aged about 40 years. He was running a stationery-cum-grocery shop and had a flour huller. His monthly income was about Rs. 700/- and he was gradually prospering in his business. His personal expenditure never exceeded Rs. 150/- per month and he used to contribute the balance of his income for the maintenance of his family. The father and the grandfather of the deceased had lived up to ripe old age and the deceased was also expected to live at least up to the age of 70, if not more. So, he would have contributed for about a period of 30 years for the maintenance of the members of his family.
3. The appellant in M. A. No. 58/77, who is the owner of the vehicle, resisted the claim contending, inter alia, that there was no rashness or negligence on the part of the driver in driving the vehicle, but due to incessant and heavy rain throughout the day, the road was extremely bad and slippery and there was sliding down of a mass of earth just at the time of accident which violently pushed the vehicle beyond the road and the driver was not in any way responsible for the accident.
4. The appellant in M. A. No. 54/77, who is the insurer, filed a separate written statement denying the allegation of rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver and also denying its liability for the claim of compensation made in respect of the death of the deceased.
5. On a consideration of the evidence adduced by the parties, the Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to careless and negligent driving by the driver of the truck in question and that the claimants were entitled to compensation of Rs. 1,01,200/-.
6. The question that arises for consideration in M. A. No. 54 of 1977 is whether the insurer is liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle for the compensation payable by him in respect of the death of the owner of the goods who was at the time of the accident travelling in the vehicle carrying his goods. The legal provision in this connection is contained in Sec.95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The relevant part of the Section is reproduced below:
"95. (1) In order to comply with the requirements of this Chapter, a policy of insurance must be a policy which -(a) is issued by a person who is an authorise
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
