IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
K. N. Singh and K. M. Dayal, JJ.
ABDUL RAZZAK - Appellant
Versus
SMT.SHARIFUNNISA - Respondents
First Appeal From Order 473 Of 1976
Decided On : 09/21/1982
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - SECTION 95 - INSURANCE POLICY - COVERAGE OF RISK - OWNER OF GOODS TRAVELLING IN GOODS VEHICLE - LIABILITY OF INSURANCE COMPANY.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant's vehicle, a public carrier, met with an accident resulting in the death of one Mohd. Nasir, who was co-owner of the goods being transported. The deceased's family filed a claim petition under Section 110a of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, claiming compensation from the owner and the insurer of the vehicle. The Tribunal held the owner liable for damages and awarded a sum of Rs. 26,400 to the claimants, but held that the insurance company was not liable to indemnify the owner.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the insurance company was liable to indemnify the owner for the damages awarded against him, as the deceased was covered by the insurance policy. The court interpreted the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the insurance policy and concluded that the risk of the owner of goods travelling in a goods vehicle is covered by the compulsory insurance policy.
Issues: 1. Whether the insurance company was liable to indemnify the owner for the damages awarded against him? 2. Whether the deceased was covered by the insurance policy?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the insurance company was liable to indemnify the owner for the damages awarded against him, as the deceased was covered by the insurance policy. 2. The court interpreted the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the insurance policy and concluded that the risk of the owner of goods travelling in a goods vehicle is covered by the compulsory insurance policy.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the appeal and modified the order of the Tribunal to the extent that Smt. Sharifunnisa, the widow of the deceased, would be entitled to withdraw the money on behalf of the minor claimants without furnishing any security.
( 1 ) THIS appeal under Section 110d of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, is directed against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Fatehpur, awarding a sum of Rs. 26,400 as compensation to the respondent-claimants.
( 2 ) MOHAMMAD Ibrahim and Mohammad Nasir hired a public carrier bearing registration No. USF 4322 which was owned by Abdul Razzak, appellant, and insured with New India Insurance company, respondent No. 7, for carrying onions from a village in District Fatehpur to Kanpur. After loading the onions into the vehicle, Mohd. Ibrahim and Mohd. Nasir who were, co-owners of the goods, boarded the public carrier along with Saeed and Majid in the drivers cabin along with the owner who was driving the vehicle. At about 3. 30 a. m. on May 3, 1975, the truck capsized at a place four furlongs to the west of village Malwan on the Grand Trunk Road. The left side of the vehicle fell on the road and the right side went upwards. The left side window of the vehicle got opened and Majid and Nasir were thrown out, and Nasir was crushed under the vehicle and he died instantaneously.
( 3 ) SMT. Sharif-in-Nisa widow of Mohd. Nasir, and three minor daughters and two minor sons of the deceased, filed a claim petition under Section 110a of the Act claiming a sum of Rs. 70,000 as damages from the owner and the insurer of the vehicle. Abdul Razzak, appellant, filed written statement denying his liability. He pleaded that he was not guilty of any rash and negligent driving. Explaining the reason for the accident, he asserted that a convoy of vehicles was coming from the opposite direction and one of them failed to give pass as a result of which the front part of the vehicle coming from the opposite direction collided with the front part of his vehicle breaking the steering wheel as a result of which the vehicle went out of control and it capsized. The window got opened and the deceased was thrown on the road. He was crushed to death by another vehicle. The insurance company also pleaded that the death of the deceased, Mohd. Nasir, was caused by another vehicle. The insurance company further pleaded that since the deceased was travelling in the goods vehicle, he was not covered by the insurance policy and the company was not liable to indemnify the owner for the damages, if any, awarded to the claimants.
( 4 ) THE Tribunal on appraisal of evidence held that the vehicle was being driven by the appellant in a rash and negligent manner as a result of which the vehicle capsized. The deceased was thrown out of the window and he was crushed by the appellants vehicle and, as such, the appellant was liable to pay damages to the claimants. The Tribunal held, that the, claimants were entitled to a sum of Rs. 26,400, as damages which was recoverable by them from the owner. The claimants had asserted that the deceased was a palledar who was being carried in the vehicle by mohd. Ibrahim for loading and unloading of the onions. The Tribunal held that since the deceased was travelling in the vehicle as owner of the goods along with Mohd. Ibrahim, his risk was not covered by the policy, and, as such, the insurance company was not liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle. It further held that the amount of compensation was payable by the owner alone. Aggrieved, the owner of the vehicle has filed the present appeal.
( 5 ) IN the grounds of appeal, a number of pleas have been raised against the findings of the tribunal on the question of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle and also against the assessment of damages, but daring the course of arguments, these pleas were not pressed and instead the appellants counsel confined his submission to the sole ground that under the insurance policy as well as under the terms of Section 95 of the M. V. Act, 1939, the insurance company was liable to indemnify the appellant for the damages awarded against him. Learned counsel for the insurance company on the contrary urged that in view of the p
Indian Mutual General Insurance (Society) Ltd. v. Manzoor Ahsan
Channappa Channaveerappa Katti v. Laxman Bhimappa Bajentri
New India Assurance Co.Ltd. v. Smt.Nathiben Chatrabhuj
Ambaben v. Usmanbhai Amirmiya Sheikh
C.Narayanan v. Madras State Palm Gur Sammelan
Hindustan Ideal Insurance Corporation Ltd. v. Manne Chimperamma
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.