unauthorized passenger - In NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO., LTD., V. ASHA RANI[1]; NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. V. BOMMITHI SUBBAYAMMA AND OTHERS[2]; NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., V. RATTANI & ORS[3] & NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., V. VEDWATI & OTHERS[4]’, this Court and the apex Court have held that the insurer is not liable to pay the compensation in the case of an unauthorized passenger travelling in the goods vehicle.

CRP 3453 / 2012

null null / null
PETITIONERRESPONDENT
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.  VSTIHRIYAPATI RAMAIAH AND 2
PET.ADV. : ANASUYARESP.ADV. : 
SUBJECT: CRPDISTRICT:  NELLORE

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3453 OF 2012

 

ORDER:

        This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 30.09.1996, in O.P.No.327 of 1989 on the file of the learned I  Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nellore, wherein the said application filed by the 1st respondent herein seeking compensation of Rs.10,000/-, was allowed in part awarding compensation of Rs.2000/-.

2.     Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the respondents. Perused the records.

3.     1st respondent filed claim application seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 28.12.1988 while he was travelling in the offending lorry bearing No.ATK.7059 belonging to the 2nd respondent and insured with the petitioner herein. It is not disputed and it is borne out by the record that the petitioner along with others is travelling in the lorry, which is a goods vehicle as unauthorized passenger. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner was engaged as a coolie for the purpose of loading and unloading the stones as claimed by him.

4.     In NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO., LTD., V. ASHA RANI[1]; NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. V. BOMMITHI SUBBAYAMMA AND OTHERS[2]; NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., V. RATTANI & ORS[3] & NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., V. VEDWATI & OTHERS[4]’, this Court and the apex Court have held that the insurer is not liable to pay the compensation in the case of an unauthorized passenger travelling in the goods vehicle.

5.     Admittedly, the policy does not cover the risk of an unauthorized passenger travelling in goods vehicle. As such, no liability can be fastened on the petitioner-insurer for payment of the compensation to the 1st respondent. The award insofar as the petitioner is also jointly liable to pay the compensation is therefore not sustainable and the same is accordingly set aside to that extent. 1st respondent is however at liberty to recover the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from the 2ndrespondent-owner of the vehicle.

6.     In the result, Civil Revision Petition is allowed. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, filed in this Civil Revision Petition shall stand closed.

_______________________
G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J
13th August, 2012.
Tsy



[1] 2003 ACJ 1 (SC)
[2] 2005(2) ACJ 721 (SC)
[3] I (2009) ACC 422
[4] 2007(1) Decisions Today (SC) 387

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515