Back
2012 Supreme(Online)(KER) 4553
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JJ
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD – Appellant
Versus
KINA NAIK – Respondent
MACA 2163 2005
SRI.RAJI T.BHASKER, CGC, SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN, SRI.SURESH KUMAR KODOTH
An insurer is not liable for compensating claims involving gratuitous passengers traveling in goods vehicles according to the insurance policy terms.
Headnote:
Insurance - Liability - Various Act Sections - The court determined that the insurer was not liable for the claim related to a gratuitous passenger traveling in a goods vehicle, interpreting the insurance policy's coverage limitations and aligning with established legal precedents.
Fact of the Case:
A minor was injured and died after being thrown from a goods vehicle. The insurer disputed liability, stating the policy did not cover gratuitous passengers. The Tribunal found the insurer liable, which was challenged in appeal.
Issues: Whether the insurance company is liable to compensate the legal heirs of the deceased who was a gratuitous passenger in a goods vehicle.
Ratio Decidendi: The insurer is not liable for claims involving gratuitous passengers in goods vehicles, based on the terms of the policy and established legal principles from previous cases.
Final Decision: Appeal allowed; insurer exonerated from liability.
JUDGMENT
Ramakrishna Pillai, J The award passed by the Tribunal directing the appellant insurer to satisfy the claim in respect of a person, who admittedly was travelling in a goods carriage is under challenge in this appeal. The direction of the Tribunal was to pay the compensation and to recover the same from the registered owner of the vehicle involved in the accident.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned counsel for the respondents.
3. Allegedly, the deceased Gudiya Naik, a minor boy aged 16 years was travelling in a Bajaj Tempo Van, a goods vehicle, insured with the appellant company. Due to the sudden application of the brake, the deceased was thrown out of the vehicle and he sustained severe injuries to which he succumbed later.
4. In the written statement, the appellant Insurance Company disputed that the policy issued by them with respect to the offending vehicle does not cover the gratuitous passengers travelling by goods vehicle. On conclusion of the trial the Tribunal arrived at a clear finding that the deceased was travelling as a gratuitous passenger in the offending vehicle. However though Ext.B1 policy was produced and marked before the tribunal, the liability was wrongly fixed on the appellant insurer.
5. The law on this point is well settled after the decisions reported in New India Assurance Company Ltd. v Asha Rani ( 2003(1) KLT 165 ) and National Insurance Company vBaljith Kaur (2004(1) KLT 938 (SC)].
6. It is relevant to note that relying on the materials on record, the Tribunal arrived at a clear finding in paragraph-11 of the award that the deceased was travelling in the offending vehicle as a gratuitous passenger at the relevant time. Ext.B1 policy would show that it did not extend any coverage to such situations. After arriving at a finding that the deceased was travelling in the goods vehicle as a gratuitous passenger, the Tribunal was not at all justified in directing the appellant Insurance Company to pay the award amount and to recover the same from the registered owner.
7. As we find force in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, that the finding of the Tribunal is based on some misconception of law laid down by the Apex Court, we are of the definite view that the finding that the appellant Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation calls for a reversal.
8. In the result, the appeal is allowed. Upholding the finding of the Tribunal regarding the primary liability of the driver and vicarious liability of the registered owner, we exonerate the appellant Insurance Company from paying the compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased.
The award shall stand modified as above.
