Back
SARAL SRIVASTAVA
National Insurance Company Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Raj Kumari – Respondent
ORDER ON APPEAL
Saral Srivastava, J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents Insurance Company.
2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant against the award dated 28.08.1998 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/1st Additional District Judge, Ballia passed in M.A.C.P. No.95 of 1990.
3. Challenging the award, learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the offending vehicle, i.e., Metador No.U.R.I.-8556 was a goods carrier vehicle, whereas the deceased was travelling as a gratuitous passenger on the said vehicle. Since, the offending vehicle was a goods carrier vehicle, therefore, the deceased was not permitted to travel as gratuitous passenger on the said vehicle. Thus, it is contended that the deceased was not covered under the insurance policy, therefore, the Tribunal has erred in law in fixing the liability upon the appellant to pay compensation.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would contend that no plea with regard to the fact that the deceased was travelling as a gratuitous passenger has been taken by the appellant in the written statement nor the appellant got any such issue framed before the Tr
A party cannot raise a plea on appeal that was not presented or evidenced in the original proceedings.
The insurance company is not liable for the death of a gratuitous passenger in a goods vehicle, and the Tribunal's pay and recover principle is valid.
The insurer is not liable for compensation if the claimant is a gratuitous passenger in a goods vehicle.
Insurance policies do not cover gratuitous passengers in a goods vehicle; hence, no liability arises for the insurer in the absence of coverage.
The court established that a claimant traveling with goods in a commercial vehicle is covered under the insurance policy, and the burden of proof lies with the insurer to demonstrate otherwise.
The main legal point established is that the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation for a gratuitous passenger if there is no insurance coverage for passengers, even if the vehicle has v....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the liability of the Insurance Company under Section 147 and Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act for compensation in the case of gratuitous passe....
An Act Policy does not cover the risk of gratuitous passengers in a private car, and the principle of pay and recover is not applicable in such cases.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the Motor Vehicles Act regarding the coverage of passengers in goods carriages and the liability of insurers and vehicle owne....
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
