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

PETITIONER RESPONDENT ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.   VS TIHRIYAPATI RAMAIAH AND 2 PET.ADV. : ANASUYA RESP.ADV. :  SUBJECT: CRP DISTRICT:  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 1^st 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.     1^st 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 2^nd 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 1^st 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. 1^st respondent is however at liberty to recover the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from the 2^ndrespondent-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

13^th 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