Back
Bhawani Singh, A. Mishra
Oriental Insurance Company
vs
Smt. Susheela Bai And Others
Decided On : 9 October, 2000
compensation - conductor or fare paying passenger - gratuitous passenger - quantum of compensation - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
Fact of the Case:
The court determined whether the deceased was a conductor, a fare paying passenger, or a gratuitous passenger in a vehicle, and held the appellant responsible for compensation as a gratuitous passenger.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the deceased was not a conductor and responsibility for compensation was held to be that of the appellant as a gratuitous passenger. The appellant's challenge to the quantum of compensation was dismissed due to lack of permission from the Tribunal under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Issues: Determining the status of the deceased in the vehicle and the responsibility for compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and relied on the evidence in the case to determine the status of the deceased and the responsibility for compensation. The appellant's challenge to the quantum of compensation was dismissed due to lack of permission from the Tribunal.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was allowed two months' time for making the payment.
Bhawani Singh, C.J.
1. The only question for determination in this case was whether the deceased was conductor in the vehicle in question or was a fare paying passenger or a gratituous passenger. The Tribunal has come to the conclusion that he was not conductor. Responsibility for payment of compensation has been held to be that of the appellant obviously on the ground that he was a gratuituous passenger, as evidence in the case does not suggest payment of fare by him. In this situation, Apex Court decision in 2000(2) M.P.H.T. 340 = AIR 2000 SC 235, New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Satpal Singh applies. The quantum of compensation cannot be assailed by the appellant in the absence of permission from the Tribunal under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Consequently, there is no merit in the appeal. The same is dismissed.
2. Shri Ruprah prays for and is allowed two months' time for making the payment.
3. Certified copy be supplied.
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
