Insurance liability for compensation hinges on the employment status of individuals as passengers in goods vehicles.

ORAL JUDGMENT

Aggrieved by the award dated 16.11.2015 passed in MVC Nos.3312/2014 and 3313/2014 by III Additional Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru (SCCH- 18), the Insurance Company has filed MFA No.924/2016 and MFA No.925/2016 respectively. Even the claimants have also filed MFA No.4748/2017 and MFA No.4759/2017 aggrieved by the award dated 16.11.2015 passed in MVC Nos.3312/2014 & 3313/2014 by III Additional Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru (SCCH-18), respectively.

2. The claim petition is filed by the claimants seeking compensation for the death of the deceased in a road traffic accident that took place on 13.07.2014. It is the case of the claimants that on 13.07.2014, at about 5:00 a.m. the deceased Madhu and Ravikumar were proceeding in a Tata Ace vehicle bearing registration No.KA-64-0375 and the same is driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and when they reached near Chikonahalli gate, Honnenahalli village, C.R. Patna Taluk and at that time the lorry was parked in the middle of the road by its driver, without any indicator and due to the same, the driver of the Tata Ace vehicle lost control over the vehicle and dashed to the lorry. As a result of the said accident, the inmates of the goods vehicle sustained grievous injuries and died at the spot. Then the claim petition is filed against the owner and insurer of the goods vehicle as well as the owner and insurer of the lorry which was parked on the road. The Tribunal has given a finding that the accident had happened because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the goods vehicle. As such, the claim petition against the owner and insurer of the lorry i.e., 3rd and 4th respondent came to be dismissed.

3. Then coming to the liability on the Insurance Company, it is the case of the Insurance Company that they are the gratuitous passengers and were travelling in a goods vehicle, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. According to them, as per the policy there is additional PA for owner, driver, an amount of Rs.100/- and additional legal liability to the coolie as per IMT39, an amount of Rs.100/- is paid. It is submitted that unless and until it is established that the deceased or the cleaner were working with the Dodla Company, to whom the said goods vehicle belongs to, they are not entitled for the compensation. The tribunal has observed that as per the contention of the claimants, the deceased person was working as a vehicle cleaner in Dodla Milk Dairy and offending vehicle belongs to Milk Diary.

4. On perusal of evidence of PW.3 as on the date of the accident, the milk packets and boxes were being transported in the offending vehicle. As the tribunal has held that the respondent-Insurance Company has failed to prove that as on the date of the accident, the deceased persons were travelling in the offending vehicle as unauthorised passengers and accordingly, the tribunal had granted an amount of Rs.10,27,000/- in MVC No.3312/2014 and an amount of Rs.9,19,000/- in MVC No.3313/2014. Aggrieved by the said order, both Insurance Company as well as the claimants are before this Court.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submits that the deceased were gratuitous passengers and the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. It is submitted that initial burden lies on the claimants who have filed the petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act , 1988, seeking compensation. But the Tribunal had fixed the burden on the Insurance Company th