Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.83 seconds)New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Asha Rani & Ors on 17 August, 2001
9. In response to a specific query raised by this Court during the course of
hearing through video conferencing, it was fairly conceded by the
learned counsel for the Claimants that, the injured and the deceased,
alongwith the others were travelling on the 'platform' of the Truck.
However, it is contended that they were travelling in their capacity as
workers engaged in connection with the construction of the road for the
4th Respondent-Company. The first question to be considered is
whether any passenger is permitted to travel in the goods vehicle. The
statutory extent of coverage in respect of the vehicle under Section 147
of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the MV Act') covers the risk
in respect of the persons and properties of the third parties besides the
risk of the specific categories of employees of the Insured (to the extent
as specified) and also the Owner or representative of the goods carried
9
in the vehicle. Scope of the above provision was subjected to
threadbare analysis and it was held by the Apex Court in New India
Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani and Others1, that nobody is entitled
to travel in a goods carriage, except an owner or representative
accompanying the goods or the employee of the specific category and
that there is no liability for the Insurer to cover the liability of the
gratuitous passengers carried in the goods carriage. A catena of
decisions followed in this line and the position of law stands settled as
on date.
National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Cholleti Bharatamma & Ors on 12 October, 2007
10. Now, the question is how far of the plea of the Claimants that the
injured / deceased who were travelling in the vehicle being the
labourers in connection with the construction of the road could be
entertained. As mentioned already, all the employees of the Insured
are not coming within the purview of Section 147 of the MV Act, except
the specific category of employees mentioned therein. The 3rd
Respondent owner of the vehicle has placed in the written statement
that the vehicle was given on hire, as required by the 4th Respondent -
Company and that the labourers were travelling in the vehicle as per
the direction given by the said Company. The said plea has been
denied by the 4th Respondent-Company. Anyhow, one thing is certain,
as pleaded by the parties and as brought on record, that several
persons were travelling in the Truck at the relevant time and that the
injured / deceased were travelling on the 'platform' of the Truck. The
liability of the Insurance Company to satisfy the risk in respect of such
1
(2003) 2 SCC 223
10
persons, even if they are employees of the insured (who are travelling
on the platform of the vehicle) had come up for consideration before
the Apex Court and as per judgment rendered in National Insurance
Co. Ltd. v. Cholleti Bharatamma and Others 2, it has been
categorically held that, coverage would be extended only if the
authorised person / employee was travelling in the 'Cabin' of the
vehicle, where seats are provided to carry such occupants. Admittedly,
since the injured / deceased were not travelling in the 'Cabin' of the
goods vehicle, but were travelling on the 'platform', it is not a case
which can be covered under the Policy and hence no liability could be
mulcted upon the Insurer.
Sanjeev Kr. Samrat vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. And Ors on 11 December, 2012
Akash Tiwari / registered owner of the vehicle and the 4 th Respondent -
Company, who allegedly had hired the vehicle. Here reliance is also
sought to be placed on the verdict passed by the Apex Court in
Sanjeev Kumar Samrat v. National Insurance Company Limited
and Others3 by the learned counsel for the Appellant / Insurance
Company, to the effect that employee of the Hirer is not covered under
the Policy and hence no liability can be fixed upon the Appellant.
The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
1