Karnataka High Court
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Moses Dindannavar on 30 January, 1996
Equivalent citations: II(1996)ACC325, 1996ACJ938, ILR1995KAR965, 1996(2)KARLJ80, 1996 A I H C 3481, (1996) 2 TAC 33, (1996) 2 ACC 325, (1996) 0 ACJ 938, (1996) 2 KANT LJ 80
Author: Mohammed Anwar
Bench: Mohammed Anwar
JUDGMENT Mohammed Anwar, J.
1. This Appeal of the Insurance Company is directed against the Judgment and Award dated 3.10.1989 of MACT II, Chitradurga, challenging its finding that appellant is also liable to pay compensation to respondent No. 1 claimant as awarded by it.
2. Respondent No. 1's (claimant's) case that on 13.7.1984 at about 3.30 a.m. when he was travelling in the said lorry bearing registration No. MYE 4628 belonging to respondent No. 3 herein (R3 for short) transporting 5 bags of coconuts from Hiriyur to Chitradurga, the lorry met with accident due to negligent driving by its driver respondent No. 2 (R2 for short) and in that accident he suffered bodily injuries, has been accepted by the Tribunal in the light of claimant's evidence adduced before it. The fact that respondent No. 1 suffered bodily injuries in the said accident, which resulted due to negligent driving of the lorry by R2 is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that he was travelling in the said lorry at the time of accident.
3. The learned Counsel for appellant contended that the appellant insurer, who was respondent No. 3 in the Claim Petition, could not have been held liable to pay compensation to claimant since the Policy of Insurance issued by the appellant in respect of the said vehicle and in favour of its owner R3 did not cover the passenger's risk, as also the Tribunal erred in appreciation of P.W.1 claimant's evidence, in holding that he was travelling in the said lorry transporting 5 coconuts bags. Substantiating his argument, he submitted that there is no mention in Ex.P2 - FIR and Ex.P4 - Spot Mahazar of the fact that respondent No. 1 was travelling in the said lorry along with coconut bags.
4. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for respondent-claimant argued otherwise in support of the impugned award of the Tribunal. His submission was that the Tribunal was justified in accepting the testimony of P.W.1 who has deposed that he was transporting the said coconut bags in the said lorry at the time of accident on payment of transportation charges to R2. He further submitted that the statement of the cleaner of the lorry in Ex.P2 - FIR was recorded by the Police during their investigation and the claimant cannot be held bound by its contents, more so, when respondents have failed to lead any rebuttal evidence on record. Similar was his contention respect of contents of Ex.P4 Spot Mahazar.
5. As regards the Tribunal's conclusion that the respondent claimant was travelling in the said lorry transporting 5 coconut bags therein paying Rs. 400/- to the lorry driver towards transportation charges, I find the same supported by acceptable evidence of PW.1 respondent - claimant and there is no valid reason to disagree with the same. As rightly submitted by the learned Counsel for respondent-Claimant that mere non-mention in Ex.P2 and Ex.p4 of the presence of coconut bags in the said lorry does not necessarily mean that claimant was not at all transporting the same therein, when he had rendered positive evidence on record before the Tribunal testifying to the fact of his transportation thereof. In that view of the matter, I do not find any serious infirmity in this conclusion of the Tribunal.
6. Adverting to the next contention of appellant's learned Counsel that in view of the legal proposition laid down by the Full Bench Decision of this Court in NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. v. DUNDAMMA, that to make the Insurance Company liable to pay compensation in respect of owner of the goods travelling in goods vehicle, it is necessary for the latter to establish that he had been transporting the goods under an agreement with the owner of the particular goods vehicle; there is no dispute about this settled legal position. But, as rightly submitted by the learned Counsel for respondent-claimant, that the evidence of P.W.1 to the effect that he boarded the said lorry along with his coconut bags after paying Rs. 400/- to R2 lorry driver towards transportation charges, by necessary legal implications establishes an agreement with the owner of the lorry for its hiring by PW1 - owner of the goods, to transport the said coconut bags; since the lorry driver acting in the course of his employment under his master - owner of the vehicle, acts as his agent. In fact, it is common knowledge that owners of the transport business generally act through their agents in carrying out their normal business of transportation. At every place and time of the use of their vehicles they cannot always be expected to be personally present to strike an agreement with the hirer of the vehicle. In that view of the matter, in the normal course of their transport business, an agreement entered into between the hirer and the driver of the vehicle, for all legal and practical purposes, is an agreement between the hirer and the owner of the vehicle. Therefore, I find no force in the contention of the learned Counsel for appellant that the Insurance Company cannot be saddled with the liability to pay compensation to I PW1 respondent-claimant under its relevant Insurance Policy unless it is established by him that he personally entered into an agreement directly with the owner of the lorry to hire it before he boarded it with coconut bags. Hence, I find little merit in this Appeal.
For the aforesaid reasons, the Appeal is dismissed. The impugned award of the Tribunal is confirmed. Parties to bear their own costs.