Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

All these appeals are being decided by a common judgment, as the facts involved therein germinate from the occurrence of same accident involving motor vehicle and thus involving common question of facts and law.

2. In all these appeals, insurer/appellant has assailed the awards passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short "the Tribunal") on the grounds that the occupants of the vehicle, on account of whose death, compensation has been awarded, were gratuitous passengers. The specific contention of insurer is that the vehicle involved in the accident was a "Goods Carriage Vehicle" and was not permitted to carry passengers, save and except to the extent as permissible under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short "the Act"). As .

7. It was averred in all these petitions that on the fateful day, "Jatar" (religious ceremony) was organized by Smt. Rekha Devi wife of Sh. Gandhi at place known as "Kangar". All the deceased persons were occupying the vehicle as owners of goods, as they were carrying different articles for the "Jatar Ceremony". In all the petitions, the cause of accident was alleged as rash and negligent driving of the driver. The insurer, owner and driver filed their separate replies. It was pleaded on behalf of the owner that the deceased persons were travelling in the vehicle as owners of goods and the accident had taken place due to sudden mechanical defect. The driver also raised the same defence with respect to cause of accident. The insurer raised various objections including that the deceased persons were travelling as gratuitous passengers. It was further pleaded that at the time of accident, the vehicle was carrying about 30 persons as gratuitous passengers, as was also evident from the copy of FIR and the accident had taken place due to .

cabin of the vehicle, they would not be entitled to compensation.

18. Reverting to the facts of the case, it cannot be said that four persons could be accommodated inside the cabin of the vehicle, which was meant to seat only one person.

19. Learned counsel for the claimants contended that in case the deceased were held as gratuitous passengers, insurance company still should be directed to pay them the compensation amount in the first instance and to recover it from the insured later. The contention so raised merits rejection for the reason; firstly that there is no provision in the Act which allows the insurer to pay in the first instance and recover later from the insured where the claim relates to gratuitous passenger in a Goods Carriage Vehicle and secondly in view of the law settled in New India Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Asha Rani, 2003 ACJ (1), National Insurance Co.

vs. Baljeet Kaur, 2004 ACJ 428. Both these judgments by three judges benches expounded the law with respect to liability of insurer to indemnify the insured in respect of claims arising out of death or bodily injury to a gratuitous passenger in a Goods carriage Vehicle and held in favour of insurer.

Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company ltd.

.

Vs Parvathneni in (2018) 9 SCC 657 has kept the question of law open on the issue whether the Supreme Court in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution can direct the insurer to pay and recover, where the liability otherwise does not arise in case of gratuitous passenger. This court while expressing above view has drawn support from judgment passed by a Division Bench of High Court of Judicature at Madras in Bharti AXA General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Aandi reported in 2019 ACJ 1975.20.