Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. Several questions relating the liability of the Insurance Company under Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, in respect of passengers carried for hire or reward, or gratuitously in a goods vehicle or -a passenger vehicle and of the liability of the owner under the Law of Torts, arise in these three appeals.

2. The appeals relating to passengers in a 'good vehicle' are two and they are CMA Nos. 486 and 502 of 1982. They arise respectively out of OP Nos. 99/1980 and 119/1980. In both the appeals, the Insurance Company is the appellant and the respondents are the owner of the vehicle (the Andhra Pradesh Paper Mills Limited, Rajahmundry) and the legal representatives of either the deceased (in OP No. 119/1980) or the injured person (in OP No. 99/1980). The 'goods vehicle' belonging to the Andhra Paper Mills was carrying bamboo belonging to the Company. While the vehicle was passing through the forests, the two police constables,--the injured one as well as the deceased one--who were in charge of the work of containing Naxalite activity in the area, were given a lift in the goods vehicle and soon thereafter the accident in question occurred. One constable died and the other was injured. There is a dispute as to whether the driver of the Company was prohibited from carrying any passengers in the goods vehicle and also a dispute as to whether these police constables were carried gratuitously or for 'hire or reward'.

3. The Court below passed decrees in these two OPs against the owner of the goods vehicle i.e., the Paper Mills as also against the Insurance Company. The Company preferred these two appeals CMA Nos. 486 and 502 of 1982. The Paper Mills preferred two CMAs with delay condonation petitions. CMA SR No. 134411 of 1983 arises out of OP No. 119/80 but that appeal was dismissed on 11-3-1986 consequent to the dismissal of the delay condonation application CMP No. 14458 of 1983. However, the other CMA SR No 134405/83 filed by the Mills against OP No. 99/80 is now before me and the delay condonation petition is CMP No. 14457/83. In that CMP notice was served on the claimants. In these appeals the Insurance Company is represented by Sri S Hanumaiah while the Paper Mills is represented by Sri G. Krishna Murthy and the claimants by Sri C Sadasiva Reddi.

6. In the third CMA i.e., CMA No. 883/1981, it is contended by Sri K. Raja Reddi representing Sri T Bali Reddi that in the case of a 'cleaner' of the passenger vehicle, the Insurance Company is statutorily liable under Section 95 upto 5,000/- (as the law stood at the relevant time). But it is argued by Sri SVRS Somayajulu that the Insurance Company is not liable in the case of death or bodily injury of the employees of the owner of the vehicle. Sri Dharma Rao representing Mr. M.V. Ramana Reddy for the claimants claims for increase in the quantum, in the Cross-objections

70. In the third CMA No 883/81, which is passenger vehicle, it is held that the 'cleaner' is covered by the Act-policy as an employee of the owner falling under Clause (ii) of the proviso to Section 95(1)(b), as he is not covered by Clause (i) of the proviso and the Insurance Company is liable upto Rs. 5,000/-as per Section 95(2), at that relevant time. CMA No. 883/81 filed by the owner of the passenger vehicle is allowed against the Insurance Company for Rs. 5,000/-. In other respects the CMA is dismissed. Having regard to the age of the claimants, the total compensation awarded is correct and the cross-objections filed by claimants are dismissed. No costs in all cases.