Back
2023 Supreme(All) 2185
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
JASPREET SINGH, J.
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Parveen and Others - Respondent
FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 457 OF 2000.
Decided On : 15-12-2023
For the Appellant : Anil Srivastava
For the Respondent: Sanjay Kumar Rao, Gyan Prakash Pandey and Mohd.Navin Kidwai
Insurance liability for unauthorized passengers in goods vehicles limits coverage under the Motor Vehicles Act, necessitating recovery from the vehicle owner when policy conditions are violated.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 173 - Appeal against award in death case - Appellant contended that deceased was an unauthorized passenger in a goods vehicle - Insurance liability under Section 147 discussed - Court affirmed that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger, therefore, the insurance company must indemnify but has a right of recovery from the owner. (Paras 4, 16, 20)
(B) Compensation - The award of Rs. 7,30,000/- with 6% interest maintained but modified to reflect the insurance company's right to recover from the vehicle owner due to policy violation. (Paras 19, 20)
Facts of the case:
The deceased was traveling in a delivery van which was involved in an accident due to negligent driving, resulting in death. The Tribunal awarded compensation, leading to the appeal concerning the insurance company's liability.
Findings of Court:
The deceased was found to be a gratuitous passenger, thus, the insurance company would pay but can recover from the vehicle owner.
Issues: Determination of liability of the insurance company and nature of the deceased's travel in the goods vehicle.
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld that only authorized individuals traveling in a goods vehicle are covered under the insurance policy, confirming existing legal precedents.
Result: Appeal partly allowed, with modified award terms.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. nature of the accident and claimant's profile. (Para 2 , 6) |
| 2. contention regarding passenger status of the deceased. (Para 4 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. court's assessment of vehicle type and insurance liability. (Para 8 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. legal standing on liability coverage under the policy. (Para 16 , 17) |
| 5. the burden of proof for authorization lies with the insured party. (Para 18) |
| 6. modification of award and recovery rights established. (Para 19 , 20 , 21) |
JUDGMENT
Jaspreet Singh, J.
Heard Shri. Anil Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company and Shri. Sanjay Kumar Rao for the owner of the vehicle, respondent no.4. None has put in appearance on behalf of the claimant-respondents no.1 to 3.
2. The instant appeal has been preferred under section 173 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 assailing the award dated 31.05.2000 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/7th Additional District Judge, Faizabad in Claim Petition No.153 of 1998 whereby in a death case, a sum of Rs. 7,30,000/- alongwith 6% interest per annum has been awarded in favour of the claimant respondents no.1 to 3.
3. The record indicates that a Division Bench of this Court by means of order dated 20.10.2000 while admitting the appeal directed the appellant to deposit the entire sum under the award within one month from the said date. Half of the deposited amount was directed to be released in favour of the claimant-respondents without surety and the other half was directed to be invested in a fixed deposit scheme with the nationalized bank.
4. Shri. Anil Srivastava has primarily assailed the award on a solitary ground that the deceased person was traveling in a goods vehicle and he was not the authorized representative of the goods owner, hence he is to be treated as an unauthorized traveler/gratuitous passenger and for the said reason the appellant company cannot be saddled with the award.
5. In order to appreciate the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, it will be relevant to take a glace at the facts giving rise to the instant appeal.
6. The claimant-respondents no.1, 2 and 3 filed Claim Petition No.152 of 1998 stating therein Shri. Daheed Ahmad on 21.07.1997 at around 5.00 P.M. was traveling from Basti to Gorakhpur in a delivery van bearing number UP 53/E-4220. At the time when the delivery van in question reached Gram Peerganj, Police Station Khalilabad, its driver who was driving the said vehicle rashly and negligently hit a tree. In the said accident, Daheed Ahmad died on the spot and certain other persons who were also traveling in the said delivery van sustained grievous injuries. It was further stated that Daheed Ahmad was a registered Contractor and was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month. Upon his death, his wife and two minor children who were dependent has suffered serious prejudice, accordingly the claim petition was filed.
7. The Insurance Company filed their written statement and had taken a plea that unless and until it was ascertained that the vehicle was duly insured and was being driven in accordance with the policy conditions the appellant-Company cannot be saddled with the liability of the award. The defendant no.6 Smt. Gumsuda Begum also filed a separate written statement who claimed herself also to be the wife of the deceased. The owner of the vehicle Smt. Renu Pal did not file any written statement despite service.
8. Upon exchange of pleadings, the Tribunal framed six issues and after considering the evidence available on record, the Claims Tribunal recorded a finding that Daheed Ahmad died on account of rash and negligent driving of the delivery van bearing number UP 53/E-420. The Tribunal also recorded that the vehicle in question was insured with the appellant company from 01.02.1997 till 31.01.1998 and since the accident occurred on 21.07.1997 the vehicle was squarely covered by the insurance policy. The Tribunal further went on to hold that there was no negligence on the part of the deceased in the a
