Allahabad High Court
National Insurance Company Ltd. vs Ajay Kumar Madesiya And Others on 18 February, 2021
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 1 Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 87 of 2009 Appellant :- National Insurance Company Ltd. Respondent :- Ajay Kumar Madesiya And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Komal Mehrotra Counsel for Respondent :- Amrit Shanker Dubey Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.
1. Heard Sri Komal Mehrotra, learned counsel for appellant-insurance company. None for the respondents even when the list is revised.
2. This appeal has been filed by the insurance company being aggrieved of award dated 18.09.2008 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, F.T.C. 5, Deoria in Claim Case No. 246 of 2005, on the ground that vehicle in question was a pickup vehicle, in which injured was travelling as a gratuitous passenger and therefore, the learned tribunal erred in overlooking this fact that there was violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, as a pickup delivery van, is not meant for travel of passengers. On this ground, he submits that the impugned award deserves to be set aside and be set aside as it is.
3. After hearing learned counsel for appellant-insurance company and going through the available papers in the file, it is apparent that evidence has been led on behalf of the claimant that he was travelling in the 'tempo' bearing registration no. UP 52 F 0752, as owner of goods namely, 'surti' (tobacco). This evidence is not rebutted by either causing effective cross-examination on the claimant or leading any other cogent evidence. As the owner of the goods, claimant was entitled to travel in the pickup delivery van, as has been held in case of Ramesh Kumar vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others; AIR 2001 SC 3363, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that "in view of 1994 amendment in sub-clause (I) of section 147 (1)(b) of the new Act in which the following words were brought in:
"...... injury to any person, including owner of the goods or his authorized representative carried in a vehicle."
8. Thus, this category of cases are also disposed of by declaring that compensation awarded in such cases where deceased or injured persons were travelling in a goods carriage who were owner or his authorized representative, the inusurance company is liable to pay the compensation."
4. Therefore, in absence of any evidence that claimant was a gratuitous passenger and not owner of the goods, no interference is called for in the appellate jurisdiction of this court.
5. Thus, appeal fails and is dismissed.
6. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that, if any, amount deposited by the insurance company, in compliance of the provisions contained in Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, be remitted to the Claims Tribunal to be adjusted from the claim amount.
7. This prayer is allowed. Registry is directed to do the needful.
Order Date :- 18.2.2021 Vikram/-