HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI
M.A.C.M.A. No.200 of 2016
JUDGMENT:
The insurer / 2nd respondent filed this Appeal challenging the decree and the order passed on 24.12.2014 in MVOP.No.390 of 2011 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - Principal District Judge, Adilabad.
2. The case of 1st respondent / claim petitioner herein is that on 17.12.2006 at about 03:00 a.m. when he was proceeding on Eicher DCM Van bearing No.AP-15-V-793 (hereinafter 'the Van') along with kirana articles and empty drum, the driver of the van drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and at high speed rammed into a tree. As a result, the petitioner respondent suffered fractures and injuries all over his body. Immediately, he was rushed to hospital and undergone treatment by incurring medical expenditure.
3. Thereupon, the petitioner filed petition under Section 166(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with Rule 455 of the A.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the injuries sustained in the accident.
4. The Tribunal, after due enquiry, awarded Rs.90,041.78 under the head of medical expenses; Rs.30,000/- for the loss of income during treatment; Rs.35,000/- for pain and suffering; Rs.5,000/- for transportation; and Rs.5,000/- for extra nourishment, in total NTR,J ::2:: macma_200_2016 Rs,1,65,000/- and held both the respondents, jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.
5. Aggrieved by the fastened liability, the insurer / 2nd respondent filed this Appeal contending that the 1st respondent / petitioner is travelling in the van as an unauthorized / fare-paid passenger and the Act policy of the van does not cover such risk. Hence, the Tribunal ought to have absolved its liability from indemnifying the 2nd respondent / insured.
6. On this aspect, the 1st respondent / petitioner as P.W.1 and in cross-examination, asserted the fact that he was travelling in the vehicle along with kirana articles and empty drum. This version is reflected in FIR / Ex.A.1 and the Charge-sheet / Ex.A.2. During cross-examination, the insurer elicited that no bills were filed to show that kirana articles were purchased; and that the license to carry on the kirana business; and that, the Panchanama conducted after the accident to show the kirana articles were in the van was also not filed. The suggestion that 1st respondent / petitioner was travelling as unauthorized passenger in the vehicle was denied. On this aspect, except the pleading and contradicting, the appellant / 2nd respondent did not place any material.
7. Howsoever, at any stretch, non-filing of bills / license and Panchanama by itself does not give any inference that there were no kirana articles in the van or that the 1st respondent / petitioner was a NTR,J ::3:: macma_200_2016 fare-paid passenger. In addition, the version of 1st respondent / petitioner is corroborating with the documents of the investigating agency, that the 1st respondent / petitioner was travelling in the van along with his kirana goods. By this positive evidence, it shall be concluded that the 1st respondent / petitioner proved the fact that he was travelling in the van along with his goods.
8. Thus, the pertinent question arises for determination would be "whether the Act policy covers risk of owner of goods?".
9. In this context, it is appropriate to quote Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which reads as under :
"147. Requirements of policies and limits of liability. --
(1) In order to comply with the requirements of this Chapter, a policy of insurance must be a policy which--
(a) is issued by a person who is an authorised insurer; and
(b) insures the person or classes of persons specified in the policy to the extent specified in sub-section (2)--
(i) against any liability which may be incurred by him in respect of the death of or bodily 27 [injury to any person, including owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle] or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place;
(ii) against the death of or bodily injury to any passenger of a public service vehicle caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place:Provided that a policy shall not be required--
(i) to cover liability in respect of the death, arising out of and in the course of his employment, of the employee of a person insured by the policy or in respect of bodily injury sustained by NTR,J ::4:: macma_200_2016 such an employee arising out of and in the course of his employment other than a liability arising under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923) in respect of the death of, or bodily injury to, any such employee--
(a) engaged in driving the vehicle, or
(b) if it is a public service vehicle engaged as conductor of the vehicle or in examining tickets on the vehicle, or
(c) if it is a goods carriage, being carried in the vehicle, or
(ii) to cover any contractual liability.
Explanation. --For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the death of or bodily injury to any person or damage to any property of a third party shall be deemed to have been caused by or to have arisen out of, the use of a vehicle in a public place notwithstanding that the person who is dead or injured or the property which is damaged was not in a public place at the time of the accident, if the act or omission which led to the accident occurred in a public place.
(2) Subject to the proviso to sub-section (1), a policy of insurance referred to in sub-section (1), shall cover any liability incurred in respect of any accident, up to the following limits, namely:--
(a) save as provided in clause (b), the amount of liability incurred;
(b) in respect of damage to any property of a third party, a limit of rupees six thousand:
Provided that any policy of insurance issued with any limited liability and in force, immediately before the commencement of this Act, shall continue to be effective for a period of four months after such commencement or till the date of expiry of such policy whichever is earlier.
(3) A policy shall be of no effect for the purposes of this Chapter unless and until there is issued by the insurer in favour of the person by whom the policy is effected a certificate of insurance in the prescribed form and containing the prescribed particulars of any condition subject to which the policy is issued and of any other prescribed matters; and different forms, particulars and matters may be prescribed in different cases.
NTR,J
::5:: macma_200_2016
(4) Where a cover note issued by the insurer under the provisions of this Chapter or the rules made thereunder is not followed by a policy of insurance within the prescribed time, the insurer shall, within seven days of the expiry of the period of the validity of the cover note, notify the fact to the registering authority in whose records the vehicle to which the cover note relates has been registered or to such other authority as the State Government may prescribe.
(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, an insurer issuing a policy of insurance under this section shall be liable to indemnify the person or classes of persons specified in the policy in respect of any liability which the policy purports to cover in the case of that person or those classes of persons."
10. The proviso to Section 147 (1)(b)(i) states that a policy is required to cover the person or class of persons specified in the policy under Sub-Section (i) of Section (1) against any liability which may be incurred in respect of death or bodily injury to any person, including owner of the goods or the authorized representative carried in the vehicle or damages to any property of a third-party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place.
11. Thus, it is clear that the owner of the goods or his authorized agent is covered under the Act policy, and it is a statutory requirement. In effect, the objection raised by the appellant / insurer that the insurance policy does not cover the risk of the 1st respondent / petitioner who was travelling in the van as owner of goods, fails on merit.
NTR,J
::6:: macma_200_2016
12. As the learned counsel for the appellant / insurer fairly conceded that the appellant is not disputing the awarded quantum of compensation, reappraising the same, found not necessary.
13. Consequently, the decree and order dt.24.12.2014 in MVOP.No.390 of 2011 on the file of Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - Principal District Judge, Adilabad is confirmed on all aspects.
14. In the result, the MACMA is dismissed. No costs.
15. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any in this Appeal, shall stand closed.
___________________ N. TUKARAMJI, J Date: 02.11.2021 Ndr