FACTS
Saju P. Paul, claimant (Respondent No. 1), was a heavy vehicle driver. He was employed with Respondent No. 2 as a driver in some other vehicle. On 16.10.1993, he was travelling in a goods vehicle. The goods vehicle was being driven by one Jayakumar. In that vehicle, many other persons were also travelling. At Nilackal, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver Jayakumar, the goods vehicle capsized. As a result of which the claimant suffered fracture and injuries. The claimant remained under treatment for quite some time and the injuries that he sustained in the accident rendered him permanently disabled. In the claim petition filed by him before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), he claimed compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-. The owner and insurer were impleaded as respondent no. 2 and respondent no. 3 respectively in the claim petition.
ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether having regard to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the insurance company is liable to pay compensation for the bodily injury caused to the claimant?
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF INSURER COMPANY
The insurer set up the plea that the vehicle was a goods vehicle and the risk of the passengers travelling in the goods vehicle was not covered under the policy of insurance. It was stated in the written statement that nearly 50 unauthorised passengers were travelling at the time of accident; they were not traveling in the vehicle in pursuance of the contract of employment, such as loading and unloading nor they were travelling as the owner of the goods or the representative of the owner of the goods and hence the insurer could not be saddled with any liability.
JUDGEMENT OF TRIBUNAL
The Tribunal, passed an award in favour of the claimant holding that he was entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/-. The liability of the insurer was made joint and several with the owner and driver.
JUDGEMENT OF KERALA HIGH COURT
Being not satisfied with the award of the Tribunal, the insurer filed an appeal before the Kerala High Court. The Division Bench held that insurer was not liable as gratuitous passengers traveling in a goods vehicle were not covered under the policy and the claimant shall be entitled to recover the awarded amount from the owner or driver of the vehicle.
JUDGEMENT OF SUPREME COURT
The Supreme Court held that the High Court was wrong in holding that the insurance company shall be liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle and pay the compensation to the claimant as directed in the award by the Tribunal. The High Court erroneously assumed that the claimant died in the course of employment and overlooked the fact that the claimant was not in any manner engaged on the vehicle that met with an accident but he was employed as a driver in another vehicle owned by M/s. P.L. Construction Company. The insured (owner of the vehicle) got insurance cover in respect of the subject goods vehicle for driver and cleaner only and not for any other employee. There is no insurance cover for the spare driver in the policy. As a matter of law, the claimant did not cease to be a gratuitous passenger though he claimed that he was a spare driver. The insured had paid premium for one driver and one cleaner and, therefore, second driver or for that purpose spare driver was not covered under the policy. So the Appeal was allowed and disposed of with no order as to costs.
Author: Pooja Meena, National Law University Jodhpur
A COMPREHENSIVE WEBSITE FOR ALL LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS