Punjab-Haryana High Court
Niranjan Singh vs Om Suta And Ors. on 17 December, 1998
Equivalent citations: II(1999)ACC472, (1999)122PLR126
JUDGMENT Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.
1. On the fateful evening of September 25, 1989 a mini truck No. HNX-917 hit a stationary trolley which was parked on the road side. As a result two persons-Sahib Singh and Jaswinder Singh died. Gurmukh Singh received certain injuries. The legal representatives of the two deceased persons and the injured Gurmukh Singh himself filed petitions for the grant of compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala.
2. In the case filed by the legal representatives of Sahib Singh a compensation of Rs. 1,92,000/- was awarded by the Tribunal. For the death of Jaswinder Singh the Tribunal assessed the compensation at Rs. 72,000/-. Besides that an amount of Rs. 3,000/- was awarded towards the funeral expenses. Thus, a total of Rs. 75,000/- was awarded. Furthermore, in both the cases interest at the rate of 12% was also awarded. The Tribunal further held that Sahib Singh and Jaswinder Singh were travelling as gratuitous passengers. Thus, the insurance company was not liable. As a result the liability was fastened on the owner of the vehicle.
3. Aggrieved by the award, Niranjan Singh, the owner of the vehicle, has filed three appeals vis. FAO Nos. 269, 270 and 271 of 1994. So far as FAO No. 271 of 1994 is concerned, the insurance company has been wrongly impleaded. Thus, the case has been adjourned by a separate order. The two appeals which remain to be considered are FAO Nos. 269 and 270 of 1994.
4. The Tribunal after considering the pleadings of the parties had framed the following issues:-
1) Whether the accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of Vehicle No. HNX-917 driven by Naib Singh respondent-Driver? OPP.
1-A) Whether the Vehicle No. HNX-917 was being driven by respondent No. 1 Naib Singh without any valid licence, route permit and registration certificate in violation of terms and conditions of policy? OPR.
2) If issue No. 1 is proved, to what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled to an from whom? OPP.
3) Relief.
5. After consideration of the evidence the Tribunal found that the accident had occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving by Naib Singh, driver of vehicle No. HNX-917. Issue No. 1-A was decided in favour of the claimants and against the insurance company. On issue Nos. 2 and 3 it was held that the claimants were entitled to compensation as noticed above from the owner of the vehicle the present appellant.
6. Mr. Arun Jain, learned counsel for the appellant, in both the appeals has made a two-fold submission. Firstly, he has contended that there is no evidence to indicate that Sahib Singh and Jaswinder Singh were gratuitous passengers. In particular, learned counsel has pointed out that Jaswinder Singh was the son of the owner viz. the present appellant. He was employed with the appellant and used to help him in the running of the truck. Thus, being an employee the appellant was entitled to be indemnified by the insurance company. He further submits that a perusal of the insurance policy shows that the appellants had paid additional premium of Rs. 240/- which would entitled him to be indemnified for injury or death of any passenger. No one has appeared on behalf of the respondents of contest F.A.O. No. 270 of 1994.
7. So far as F.A.O. No. 269 of 1994 is concerned, there is nothing to indicate as to why Sahib Singh was travelling by the truck of the appellant. He was not carrying any goods. He was not employed with the appellant. In this situation, it is clear that he was a gratuitous passenger. In this situation, the only question that arises is - Does the insurance policy entitle the appellant to claim indemnification?
8. The certificate of insurance has been produced as Ex.R2 on the record. The appellant has paid a total premium of Rs. 2,764/-. In the certificate it has been specifically stipulated that the policy does not cover "use for carrying passengers in the vehicle except employees . . . . " Thus it is clear that the insurance policy does not entitle the appellant to claim indemnification from the Insurance Company so far as the passengers are concerned. However, in respect of the employees the position is clearly different. According to the terms of the policy itself the owner of the vehicle is entitled to claim indemnification for the loss on account of death of or injury to an employee. Thus, so far as Sahib Singh is concerned, the claim as made in this appeal, cannot be accepted F.A.O. No. 269 of 1994 is, accordingly, dismissed.
9. So far as the claim in respect of the death of Jaswinder Singh is concerned, it appears that Didar Singh P.W.4 had stated that he was working as a casual conductor with Naib Singh driver as and when needed by him. If the matter had rested here, it may have been possible for the appellant to contend that Jaswinder Singh deceased was an employee. However, the record shows that Harbhajan Kaur, wife of the appellant and mother of the deceased, had appeared as P.W.1. In her examination-in-chief she has categorically asserted that after the school hours he "used to do tuition work at home. He used to teach students of 6th and 7th class. In this way he used to earn Rs. 300/- to 400/- per month." It was not even stated by her that the deceased was employed in any capacity on the truck. Thus, the claim based on employment, cannot be sustained.
10. It is unfortunate that the appellant lost his son in the accident. It is somewhat ironical that even the claim for compensation in respect of deceased Jaswinder Singh is being granted against the appellant himself. However, the fact remains that the deceased was travelling on a goods vehicle. He was not an employee. Thus, the Insurance Company cannot be held to be liable.
11. No other point has been raised.
12. In view of the above, I find no merit in either of the two appeals so as to call for any interference with the award given by the Tribunal. Resultantly, both the appeals are dismissed. No costs.