Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that in MVC.Nos. 262 to 265/86 from the present appeals have been filed in the policy Ext.R2, it is mentioned that the policy covers the use for social, domestic or pleasure purposes and for the business of the insured. The learned Counsel for the claimants have contended that the occupants who were travelling in the car were returning after attending a dance programme at the time of the accident. It must be held that the car was given for the use of social, domestic and pleasure purposes by the 1st respondent/owner of the car. The Tribunal has held that since the car was not used by the 1st respondent/owner at the time of the accident for its social, domestic or pleasure purposes and as it was given to his acquaintance Sri G.S. Venkatesh, Advocate for his use. So, the said purpose for which the car was given for the use by the deceased Venkatesh cannot be considered as the use of the car by the insured/owner for his own social, domestic or pleasure purposes. Policy Ex.R2 issued in respect of the car does not cover the risk of any of the injured claimants who were the occupants of the car or the risk of the deceased Venkatesh who was driving the car and it has been held by the Tribunal that the present appellants cannot be considered as the third party within the meaning of the third party risk covered by the policy. Whenever the persons involved in the accident are not connected with the insured such as pedestrians, passengers in a vehicle (not a passenger in a goods vehicle) any person who is not in the vehicle which involved in the accident are to be considered as third parties. In the present case, as the injured passengers and deceased Venkatesh were all the occupants of the same car involved in the accident, they cannot be considered as third parties and their risk is not covered by the policy Ex.R2 issued in respect of the said car. Hence, the Tribunal has held Issue No. 5 raised in the MVC cases filed by the claimants that respondents-1 and 2 viz., owner of the car and the Insurance Company are not liable to pay any compensation to any of the claimants in all the cases and answered Issue No. 5 in the negative and dismissed the claim petitions for compensation.