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

2000 Supreme(MP) 164

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
D.P.S. Chauhan, Actg. C.J. and Arun Mishra, J.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Vs.
Goverdhan and Ors.
M.A. No. 1064 of 1997
Decided On: 23.02.2000

Advocates Appeared:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: A. Ruprah, Adv.
For Respondents/Defendant: A. Dixit, Adv.

The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, regarding the validity of driver's license, insurance coverage for non-gratuitous passengers, and the assessment of compensation.

Headnote:

Insurance - Motor Accident Claim - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 2(21), Section 2(47), Section 2(48), Section 147 - The court discussed the definitions of 'light motor vehicle' and 'transport vehicle' under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and their implications on the validity of the driver's license and the insurance company's liability. The court also highlighted the provisions of Section 147 regarding insurance coverage for gratuitous passengers and the interpretation provided by the Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Satpal Singh.

Fact of the Case:

The deceased, a watchman, died in a motor accident while carrying goods in a vehicle. The insurance company denied liability based on the driver's alleged lack of a valid license and the vehicle not being insured for carrying passengers.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the driver possessed a valid license for the vehicle in question and that the insurance company was liable to indemnify for the accident, including the deceased as a non-gratuitous passenger.

Issues: Validity of driver's license, insurance company's liability for non-gratuitous passengers, and assessment of compensation.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the driver's license was valid for the vehicle, and the insurance company was liable for the accident, including the deceased as a non-gratuitous passenger. The court also declined to enhance the compensation due to lack of appeal or cross-objection by the claimants.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, affirming the award of Rs. 1,27,000 along with interest to the claimants.

JUDGMENT

Arun Mishra, J.

1. Insurer aggrieved by an award of Rs. 1,27,000 along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of application, in claim petition with respect to death claim of Lac-chinder who died in a motor accident dated 30.12.1992, filed the instant appeal.

2. The deceased was working on daily wages as watchman in the Weavers Society, Paulbel. The deceased was carrying bundle of clothes on a vehicle bearing registration No. MP-25-2588 from Paulbel to Jagdalpur. The vehicle met with an accident about 6 km. before Jagdalpur. In the incident, deceased was injured. He was admitted in the hospital and succumbed to death same day. The Matador was owned by Sanjeev Kumar, non-applicant No. 2 and was driven by Vijay Yadav, non-applicant No. 1, and was insured with United India Insurance Co. Ltd. The claimants filed a claim petition for compensation of Rs. 4,23,000. The claimants are parents, widow and minor daughter of the deceased. The owner and driver in their joint reply admitted that the deceased was carrying the clothes. Accident was also admitted. However, it was denied that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving and the liability, if any, has to be indemnified by the insurance company. The insurance company in its reply denied even the factum of accident and factum of insurance. Alternatively, plea was taken that the driver was not possessing the valid driving licence in accordance with the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

3. It was further contended that the vehicle in question was not insured for carrying passengers. Hence, there was violation of terms of the policy. Hence, the insurance company was not liable to indemnify.

4. The Claims Tribunal found that the deceased died in the accident. Deceased's income was assessed at Rs. 700 per month and dependency was assessed at Rs. 500 per month. It was found by the Claims Tribunal that the deceased was carrying goods in the vehicle and was a non-gratuitous passenger. The licence held by the driver of light motor vehicle was held to be valid as unladen weight of Matador was found to be below 7500 kg. Deceased was aged 35 years. The Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 20 and total award has been passed for a sum of Rs. 1,27,000.

5. In the present appeal it has been submitted by learned Counsel Mrs. A. Ruprah appearing for the insurer that the driver was not possessing a valid driving licence to drive the Matador vehicle which was the goods vehicle. He was possessing the licence of light motor vehicle. Goods vehicle is not light motor vehicle. As there was violation of condition of the policy, the insurer could not be held to be liable. The second submission raised is that the deceased was travelling as a passenger in goods vehicle, i.e., Matador, hence, the insurance company could not be held liable to indemnify.

6. The first submission which has been raised has to be appreciated in view of the definition of light motor vehicle with respect to which driver was possessing a valid driving licence. 'Light motor vehicle' has been defined in Section 2, Sub-section (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as under:

'Light motor vehicle' means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed 7500 kilograms;

7. The words used 'transport vehicle' under Section 2, Sub-section (21) have been further defined in Section 2, Sub-section (47) as under:

'Transport vehicle' means a public service vehicle, a goods carriage, an educational institution bus or a private service vehicle;

'Unladen weight' has been defined in Sub-section (48) of Section 2, as under:

Unladen weight' means the weight of a vehicle or trailer including all equipment ordinarily used with the vehicle or trailer when working, but excluding the weight of a driver or attendant; and where alternative parts or bodies are used the unladen weight of the vehicle means the















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