RANCHI, India, Aug. 18 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on July 17:
1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company and Mr. Birendra Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1 to 7, who are claimants. No one appears for the respondent no. 8, who is owner of the vehicle, despite repeated calls, though Vakalatnama has already been filed on his behalf.
2. This appeal has been preferred at the instance of Insurance Company challenging the Judgment and Award dated 24.07.2017 passed in Title (M.V.) Claim Case No. 246 of 2015 by learned District Judge-I-cum-Presiding Officer, MACT, Dhanbad, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 8,91,600/- with 6% interest from the date of filing of the claim case till its realisation within two weeks from the date of order to the claimants which shall be paid by the Insurance Company with rider to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle.
3. Mr. Ashutosh Anand, learned counsel appearing for the appellantInsurance Company submits that the claim application was filed before the learned Tribunal stating therein that on 11.10.2013, the deceased (Manoj Kumar Sao) purchased vegetables from Ramgarh Mandi for the purpose of sale in Barhi Market and loaded the same on 407 vehicle (half dala), bearing Registration No. JH-02V-2501. While the vehicle reached near diversion of Kuju O.P, it got turned turtle due to rash and negligent driving by the driver, as a result of which, Manoj Kumar Sao sustained severe injuries and died during treatment at Apurva Hospital. Learned counsel submits that for the said occurrence, Mandu (Kuju) P.S. Case No. 382 of 2013 was lodged against driver of the vehicle and after investigation, charge-sheet was submitted by the police under Sections 279, 338 and 304-A of the Indian Peanl Code against the driver of the vehicle. Learned counsel further submits that the claim case disclosed that at the time of accident, the deceased was aged 25 years and he was doing business of vegetables and his monthly income was Rs. 12000/- per month. Learned counsel submits that it was alleged that the said vehicle was insured at the relevant time with the appellant-Insurance Company. With these backgrounds, the claim case was instituted and has been decided by the learned Tribunal, as aforesaid. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Companyappellant assailed the impugned judgment on the ground that the vehicle in question was a Goods vehicle and the deceased was travelling in the said vehicle as gratuitous passenger. Learned counsel submits that in view of that, the deceased was not insured under the insurance policy. Learned counsel further submits that however, right of recovery is provided to the Insurance Company from the owner of the vehicle in question, as the driving licence of the driver was found to be invalid.
4. Mr. Birendra Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the claimantsrespondent nos. 1 to 7 submits that deceased has purchased vegetables for selling it in Barhi Market and in that view of the matter, he was owner of the goods. Referring to Section 147 (1)(b)(i) of the Motor Vehicle Act, learned counsel submits that a person including owner of the goods is also covered under the policy. Learned counsel further submits that the insurance policy was issued with sitting capacity of three persons and at the relevant point of accident, only two persons (i.e. driver and deceased) were seated in the vehicle in question. Learned counsel further submits that the learned Tribunal has rightly passed the award in favour of the claimants.
5. In view of the above pleadings of the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the Trial Court records, it is crystal clear that the deceased has purchased vegetables at Ramgarh Mandi for selling it in Barhi Market and as such, he was the owner of the goods. Section 147 (1)(b)(i) of the Motor Vehicles Act prescribes that owner of goods or authorised representative of goods carried in the transport vehicle must be insured under the insurance policy. Therefore, the deceased was not a gratuitous passenger, as he had travelled along with the goods. Moreover, the insurance policy was issued insuring three persons and at the time of accident, only two persons were travelling in the vehicle in question. In that view of the matter, there is no force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger. No interreference is warranted in the judgment passed by the learned Tribunal.
*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=eISc8sUCYnQFBVP%2BVeJCOLlC6hAnixRzMo0BarSzkxcy0v2LkjA8fKG2dYN1p6r9&caseno=MA/720/2017&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010293712017&state_code=7&appFlag=)
Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.
