Ramprasad vs The United India Ins.Co.Ltd on 30 January, 2016
In another ruling
reported in 2009 ACJ 524 (United India Ins.Co.Ltd., vs
Salauddin Abdulkhadar Manihar and another), 2009 ACJ
1643 (National Ins.Co.Ltd., vs Mintu Dobnath and
another) and 2015 AAC 2481(HYD) (Oriental Ins.Co.Ltd.,
Visakhapathnam vs Kolusu Adilaxmi & others)
22 MVC.35/12
SCH-16
In all these rulings, our Hon'ble High Court as well as Hon'ble
Hyderabad High Court has held that where the petitioner
travels as gratuitous passenger, the insurance company is
not liable to pay compensation. Absolutely, there is no
dispute with regard to the said position of law. But, it is to be
noted that as per Ex.P.1,P.2 and Ex.R.1, which is a case diary
reveals that the petitioner was traveling as cleaner-cum-
loader in the Tipper lorry bearing No. MH.42/B.8440.
Therefore, as per the policy issued by the respondent No.1,
separate premium has been paid to cover the risk of five
employees. The petitioner being cleaner-cum-loader at Tipper
lorry is also covered under the said policy. Therefore, the said
policy was in force as on the date of accident. The respondent
No.1 being the insurer and respondent No.2 being owner of
the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay
compensation to petitioners with interest at 9% p.a. However,
primary liability is fixed on respondent No.1. Accordingly,
issue No.2 is answered partly in the affirmative.