SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2016 Supreme(P&H) 332

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
K. KANNAN, J.
HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Limited - Appellant
Versus
Ram Pyari and others - Respondents
FAO No.3088 of 2012 (O&M)
Decided on : 18.02.2016

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocate, for the appellant.
Mr. Pankaj Midha, Advocate, for respondents 6(A) to 6(F)

The liability of the insurer is limited to specific classes of persons as per the Motor Vehicles Act and is restricted to what is set out under Section 140 of the Act.

Headnote:

Liability - Insurance - Tractor - Passenger on Mudguard - Summary: The court held that a tractor is not meant to carry passengers and specifically stated that a policy of insurance for the vehicle is compulsory only for certain classes of persons, excluding passengers on the mudguard. The court also emphasized that the liability of the insurer is limited to what is contemplated under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, setting the liability at Rs. 25,000 with interest.

Fact of the Case:

The Insurance Company appealed against the liability cast on the insurer for the death of a person traveling on the mudguard of the vehicle.

Finding of the Court:

The court analyzed the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and held that the liability of the insurer is limited to specific classes of persons and is restricted to what is set out under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

Issues: The issues revolved around the liability of the insurer for the death of a person traveling on the mudguard of a vehicle and the interpretation of the Motor Vehicles Act in this context.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that a tractor is not meant to carry passengers and that the liability of the insurer is limited to specific classes of persons as per the Motor Vehicles Act. The court also highlighted the restricted liability under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

Final Decision: The appeal was allowed to the extent that the liability of the insurer was restricted to what is contemplated under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, setting the liability at Rs. 25,000 with interest. The claimants were granted the benefit of recovery against the owner and driver for any portion of the claim in excess of the stipulated amounts.

JUDGMENT :

K.Kannan, J.

1. The Insurance Company is in appeal against the liability cast on the insurer for death of a person travelling on the mudguard of the vehicle. The counsel refers to me to some judgments which referred to a claim as possible if a person is seated on a mudguard. I discard all these judgments as not stating the law and they are per incuriam. I state so for the following reasons.

2. A tractor is not meant to carry passengers and it specifically states under Section 2(44) that it is not itself constructed to carry any load other than equipment used for the purpose of propulsion. A policy of insurance that insures the vehicle is for any damage or injury which is caused for which the policy is compulsory in terms of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The liability for passengers (apart from “3rd parties”) obtains under the scheme of Section 147 for the following class of persons: (i) passenger in a service vehicle; (ii) owner of goods travelling along with goods; (iii) loadman or persons to whom the coverage is possible under the Employees Compensation Act of 1923. Apart from the above persons, a paid driver or a conductor who have the benefit of claim arising out of and in the course of employment requiring to be covered under the Employees Compensation Act are also bound to be covered. These are the only persons who will have the benefit of claims being answered with liability cast on the insurer and for any other class of persons, they shall be drawn through specific policy coverage. After the decision of the Supreme Court in Pushpabai Purshottam Udeshi Versus Ranjit Ginning and Pressing Company1977 ACJ 343 (SC), IDRA circulars directed insurer to take liability for passengers in a private car also, if a comprehensive policy is taken. An extra premium that can cover the risk to a passenger in a private vehicle cannot extend to a person who is unauthorized.

3. Courts have always recognized certain classes of persons as not leaving a trail of claim payable against the insurer. They are:

(i) gratuitous passengers in a goods vehicle (see: New India Assurance Company Limited Versus Asha Rani 2003 (2) SCC 223); (ii) passengers for hire or reward in goods carriages (see: M/s National Insurance Company Limited Versus Baljit Kaur and others 2004 (2) SCC 1); (iii) in respect of two wheelers, a borrower from an owner of a vehicle (see: Ningamma and another Versus United India Insurance Company Limited 2009 (13) SCC 710). This court itself had occasions to deal with the untenability of claims arising on account of persons sitting on mudguard of the tractor making claims for compensation. (see: United India Insurance Company Limited Versus Smt. Santra Devi 2010 (4) PLR 432; United India Insurance Company Versus Ramji Lal 2010 (4) PLR 436; and Krishan Versus Tarawati widow and others 2011 (3) PLR 29). The claim for compensation is, therefore, untenable and the Tribunal ought to have dismissed it.

4. New India Assurance Company Versus Bimla (2010) 2 RCR (Civil) 27, relied on by the respondent was the case of hired labourer travelling in trolley for transporting agricultural goods. They are persons who have to be compulsorily covered under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act read with Employees Compensation Act, 1923 and hence, not applicable. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Versus Vijay Singh and others 2007

(1) PLR 600 examined the case of a person travelling on mudguard of a tractor attached to a trailer which was carrying goods of which the mudguard traveller was an owner. Section 147 requiring compulsory insurance for an owner of goods travelling with goods was applied. It is doubtful if this judgment is any longer good law, particularly in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited Versus Cholleti Bhartamma 2008 (1) SCC 423. This Supreme Court judgment is authority that even an owner can not travel in unauthorized places of vehicle which is not meant to seat passen



Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top