Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

We are of the view that the better view as between the two sets of authorities is the one to which we have arrived upon the analysis of the statutory provisions. We are of the view that when a hirer of a goods vehicle for carriage of his goods is travelling by the said vehicle in connection with the carriage of the goods with the consent of the driver or owner of the goods vehicle in question, he must be deemed to be a passenger on the vehicle for reward within the meaning of Clause (ii) of the proviso to Section 95(1) of the Act and hence the tortious liability of the owner towards him must be covered by the insurance policy contemplated by the said section.

16. In Ragunath's case, 1986 ACJ 460 (Bombay), this court, thus, held that even if the vehicle has a permit only for carrying goods, the carrying of persons is not prohibited absolutely.

17. Though the opinion of the various High Courts on the question as to whether the liability can be fastened on the insurer of the goods vehicle for the death of or injury to the owner of the goods or the employee of the owner of goods being carried in the goods vehicle along with the goods is not uniform and, on the other hand, virtually divergent, the preponderance of the opinion of the various High Courts appears to be in favour of the view that if the owner of the goods or employee of the owner of the goods travels in the goods vehicle along with his goods for hire or reward, the tortious liability of the owner is required to be compulsorily covered by the insurance policy and accordingly, the insurance company is liable. The Full Bench of Rajasthan High Court in Santra Bai v. Prahlad 1985 ACJ 762 (Rajasthan), has held that in case of passengers' carriage for hire or reward or by reason of or in pursuance of contract of employment in any vehicle, the insurance company is liable and this will include the owner of the goods as well as his employees.

... We are of the view that when a hirer of a goods vehicle for carriage of his goods is travelling by the said vehicle in connection with the carriage of the goods with the consent of the driver or owner of the goods vehicle in question, he must be deemed to be a passenger on the vehicle for reward within the meaning of Clause (ii) of the proviso to Section 95(1) of the Act and hence the tortious liability of the owner towards him must be covered by the insurance policy contemplated by the said section.

25. We, therefore, negative the contention of the learned counsel for the insurer that the liability of the insurer was limited to the extent of Rs. 10,000/- only.

26. Now, a word about the Full Bench decision of the Karnataka High Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Dundamma , which has been strongly relied upon by the counsel for the insurer. It may be observed at the outset that the facts in Dundamma's case (supra) were entirely different inasmuch as in the said case about 15 passengers who were strangers not carrying goods were travelling in the truck which met with the accident and it did not relate to the death of or bodily injury to the owner of the goods or employee of the owner of the goods being carried in the goods vehicle for hire or reward though the question referred to the said Full Bench was whether by force of Clause (ii) of proviso to Section 95(1)(b) of the Act of 1939 the insurance company is liable to pay compensation in respect of death of or bodily injury to any person travelling in a vehicle though it is not the vehicle constructed and adapted and meant in law for carrying passengers for hire or reward even to the extent of number of passengers permitted to be carried in the vehicle though not for hire or reward, even in the absence of any extra coverage secured by the owner under the policy concerned in respect of such passengers. The Full Bench of the Karnataka High Court noted the divergent opinion of the different High Courts and disagreed with the view of the Allahabad, Rajasthan and Kerala High Courts and also with the view of this court in Nasibdar's case, 1983 ACJ 264 (Bombay). We find that the view of the Division Bench of this court in Nasibdar's case (supra) and the view of other High Courts taking the same view is more justified and consensus of more High Courts is in favour of the view that if the owner of the goods or the employee of owner of the goods travels in the goods vehicle along with his goods for hire, or reward, tortious liability of the owner of the goods vehicle is required to be compulsorily covered by the insurance policy and the insurance company should be made liable, is more justified. We, therefore, express our disagreement with the view of the Karnataka High Court in Dundamma's case (supra) and follow the view of this court in Nasibdar's case (supra) and the view of the Allahabad, Rajasthan, Kerala, Orissa and Andhra Pradesh High Courts taking the same view. It may also be observed that in Dundamma's case (supra) also the Full Bench of the Karnataka High Court applied the principles of stare decisis regarding the liability of the insurance company in respect of owner of goods travelling in a goods vehicle with his goods by observing that the insurance company has been made liable for the last nearly 12 years and, therefore, held that the liability of the insurance company would continue in respect of owner of the goods travelling in goods vehicle with his goods.