Chhattisgarh High Court: A Division Bench of P. R. Ramchandra Menon and Parth Prateem Sahu JJ. allowed the appeal and modified the impugned award.
The facts of the case are such that on 20-04-2010 Bhuvan Singh, Pramila and other persons were travelling on the offending vehicle and going to Manvari from Village Tilokhan. On the way at about 11.30 pm near crossing bridge at Charvahi Pasan Ghat, due to rash and negligent driving of NA1/driver, the offending vehicle met with an accident and overturned wherein Bhuvan Singh, and Pramila died. The legal representatives of both deceased individuals filed claims petition before Claims Tribunal which was partially granted and the liability was fastened on the Insurance Company to pay for it. Aggrieved by the same, appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company.
Counsel for the appellants submitted that vehicle in which deceased persons along with others were travelling was a goods vehicle. The policy issued for the offending vehicle for a period from was under the head “Goods Carrying Vehicle Package Policy wherein no premium was charged for any occupants/labourers etc. The Insurance Company cannot be held liable to satisfy the amount of compensation in absence of any coverage of risk for the gratuitous passengers travelling on the offending vehicle. It was further submitted that as per Section 147 of the Act of 1988, there is no statutory liability of the Insurance Company for covering the risk of any other persons than the employee or owner of the goods vehicle.
Counsel for the respondents submitted that the impugned award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal and submits that learned Claims Tribunal, based on the evidence and material available on record has passed the impugned award which does not call for any interference.
The Court observed that the Policy is issued under Section 147 of the Act, 1988, wherein the risk of gratuitous passenger travelling in goods vehicle is not covered, relied on judgment National Insurance Company Limited v. Chollety Bharatamma, (2008) 1 SCC 423 wherein it was held that that injury to any person used under Section 147(1) (b) would only mean third person and not a passenger gratuitous or other. It further observed that :
‘9. … The difference in the language of ‘goods vehicle’ as appearing in the old Act and ‘goods carriage’ in the Act is of significance. A bare reading of the provisions makes it clear that the legislative intent was to prohibit goods vehicle from carrying any passenger. This is clear from the expression ‘in addition to passengers’ as contained in the definition of ‘goods vehicle’ in the old Act. The position becomes further clear because the expression used ‘goods carriage’ is solely for the carriage of ‘goods’. Carrying of passengers in a goods carriage is not contemplated in the act. There is no provision similar to Clause (ii) of the proviso appended to Section 95 of the old Act prescribing requirement of insurance policy. Even Section 147 of the Act mandates compulsory coverage against death of or bodily injury to any passenger of ‘public service vehicle’. The proviso makes it further clear that compulsory coverage in respect of drivers and conductors of public service vehicle and employees carried in goods vehicle would be limited to liability under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (in short ‘the WC Act’).
- The inevitable conclusion, therefore, is that provisions of the Act do not enjoin any statutory liability on the owner of a vehicle to get his vehicle insured for any passenger travelling in a goods carriage and the insurer would have no liability therefor.”
- It is now well settled that the owner of the goods means only the person who travels in the cabin of the vehicle.”
The Court thus held that the finding recorded by Claims Tribunal with regard to breach of a policy condition is contrary to law. Hence the insurance company was absolved from the liability to pay and the owner and driver of the offending vehicle were directed to pay the compensation.
In view of the above, the impugned award was set aside.[HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co. Ltd v. Sitaram, 2020 SCC OnLine Chh 1452, decided on 07-10-2020]
Arunima Bose, Editorial Assistant has put this story together
