New India Assurance Company Ltd vs Thakubai Khandu Solat And Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 9572 Bom

                                            1
                                                                          692.04FA

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                          BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                               FIRST APPEAL NO.692 OF 2004

          New India Assurance Company Ltd.
          Through it's Divisional Manager,
          Adalat Road, Aurangabad.              .. APPELLANT
                                           [Orig. Respondent no.3]
                 VERSUS

          1]       Thakubai w/o. Khandu Solat,
                   Age 52 years, Occu. Household.
                   R/o. Gangapur, Tq. Gangapur,
                   District Aurangabad.

          2]       TATA Engineering & Locomotive
                   Company Limited,
                   Through it's Regional Sales Office,
                   TELCO, Ambala-Chandigarh Road,
                   District Ropur [Punjab]             .. RESPONDENTS

                                       ...
          Mr.S.G.Chapalgaonkar, Advocate for the appellant.
          Mr.V.D.Patnoorkar, Advocate for respondent no.1.
          Mr.A.S.Bajaj, Advocate for respondent no.2.
                                       ...
                                  CORAM : S.G.DIGE, J.

                                       Reserved on : 03.08.2022
                                       Pronounced on: 21.09.2022

          JUDGMENT :

1] The issue involved in this appeal is whether the

Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation when the

vehicle was covered under transit policy.

692.04FA

Brief facts of the case are as under :-

2] On 24.05.1998 the deceased Khandu Solat was

going towards Rajaram Takali in TATA chassis bearing

registration No. MH-12/685 with the goods necessary for

the engagement. When the vehicle reached near

Nandrabad, one motor taxi came from opposite side which

was carrying some bamboo sticks tide on the top of taxi. At

that time, both vehicles were driven in rash and negligent

manner at excessive speed without taking into consideration

the situation of the road. The bamboos tide on the top of

taxi hit on the face and head of the driver Shri Laxman

Solat of the TATA chassis, consequently he lost the control

and went in the ditch by the side of the road. The deceased,

who was sitting in the TATA chassis, was thrown away from

the vehicle. He received serious injuries. Subsequently, he

succumbed to the injuries.

3] Petition filed by respondent no.1 - original

claimant for getting compensation before the Motor

692.04FA

Accident Claims Tribunal, Aurangabad [for short 'the

Tribunal']. The Tribunal has awarded the compensation.

The said Judgment and order is under challenge by the

appellant - original respondent no.3 [Insurance Company].

4] It is the contention of the learned counsel for

the appellant that the chassis involved in the accident is

neither the goods vehicle, nor it is a passenger vehicle. The

passenger or goods cannot be carried in the said vehicle.

The Insurance Company has not covered the risk of, either

any passenger, or the goods carried on the chassis under the

insurance policy. The vehicle in question was the bare

chassis. The transit policy was given to the said vehicle to

carry from the place of its manufacturer to the dealer. In

these circumstances, by carrying the passenger, the insurer

has committed breach of specified policy condition, hence,

the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any

compensation, but this fact is not considered by the

Tribunal, hence, requested to allow the appeal. The learned

counsel for the appellant relied on the judgments in the

692.04FA

cases of the United India Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Shaheda

Parvin Allauddin Kazi & others in First Appeal No.572 of

2005 decided on 08.04.2008, National Insurance Co. Ltd.

Vs. Jugal Kishore and others in Civil Appeal No. 3677 of

1984, decided on 09.02.1988, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

Vs. Devireddy Konda Reddy and others reported in [2003] 2

SCC 339 and in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

Vs. Asha Rani in Civil Appeal No.5385 of 2001 decided on

03.12.2012.

5] It is the contention of the learned counsel for

the respondents that the deceased was travelling in the said

TATA chassis along with goods. He was relative of the

driver. So it cannot be considered as a paying passenger.

The Insurance of the said vehicle was taken, hence, the

person, who was travelling in the said vehicle, is covered

under the insurance policy. The Tribunal has considered all

the aspects and passed the judgment, which is legal and

valid.

692.04FA

6] I have heard all learned counsel. Perused the

judgment and order passed by the Tribunal. Admittedly, the

TATA chassis [offending vehicle] was going towards dealer

from the place of manufacturer and there was temporary

registration of the said vehicle.

7] Section 43 of the Motor Vehicles Act provides

for issuance of temporary registration. Sub-section [2] of

Section 43 of the Motor Vehicles Act reads thus:-

(2) A registration made under this section shall be valid only for a period not exceeding one month, and shall not be renewable :

Provided that where a motor vehicle so registered is a chassis to which a body has not been attached and the same is detained in a workshop beyond the said period of one month for being fitted (with a body or any unforeseen circumstances beyond the control of the owner), the period may, on payment of such fees, if any, as may be prescribed, be extended by such period of periods as the registering authority or other prescribed authority, as the case may be, may allow.'

692.04FA

This section states the temporary registration

period is only for one month. The policy issued to the said

vehicle was transit policy and the body of the vehicle was

only chassis and not a whole body. When there was only a

chassis vehicle then carrying passenger in it, is not

permitted, hence, liability of the deceased cannot be

fastened on the appellant. Respondent no.1 is the driver of

the said truck and respondent no.2 is the owner of the said

TATA chassis, hence, liability of paying compensation is on

respondent no.1 and respondent no.2. The Tribunal has

erroneously held that the appellant is liable for paying

compensation as the insurance policy was taken from the

appellant. As observed earlier, it was transit policy. It was

not applicable to other person except driver of offending

vehicle. Hence, I pass the following order:-

ORDER

i] The appeal is allowed.

692.04FA

ii] The appellant is exonerated from paying the compensation. Respondent nos.1 and 2, jointly and severally, are liable to pay the compensation as ordered by the Tribunal.

iii] Accordingly, First Appeal is disposed of.

[S.G.DIGE] JUDGE

DDC