This is an appeal against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award exonerating the insurance company. The High Court held that the claimant, being a passenger for hire in a goods vehicle without special coverage, was not covered under the policy.
The First Appeal was dismissed; the impugned Award was confirmed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
FA No.615/1997
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO.615/1997
Gangaram s/o Prabhu Mundhe
Age: 24 Yrs., occu. Operator,
R/o Dabhi Taluka Ambejogai,
District Beed. - Appellant
(orig. Petitioner)
VERSUS
1) Sopan s/o Nanji Chate(Appeal stand abated as
against Resp.No.1, vide
Registrar's Order dated
15.10.2003)
2)Senior Divisional Manager,
The United India Insurance
Company Ltd., Station Road,
Parbhani.
3)Navnath Srirang Munde,
Age: 30 Yrs., occu. Driver,
R/o Arbujwadi, Tq.Gangakhed,
District Parbhani. - RESPONDENTS
*****
Mr.Umakant B.Deshmukh, Adv. h/for Mr. VD Salunke,
Advocate for Appellant/s;
Appeal stands abated as against Resp.No.1.
Mr.AD Soman, Adv. h/for Mr. DV Soman,Advocate for
Respondent No.2
Mr.SV Mundhe, Adv. For Resp.No.3.
CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.
DATE : 30th January, 2014.
ORAL JUDGMENT:
1)Heard. The appeal is admitted on
22.12.1998. The appellant, the injured, assailed the
Awrd in MACP No.12/1990 recorded on 11th June, 1993 by
2 FA No.615/1997
the learned Ex-Officio Member, Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Parbhani, exonerating the Respondent No.2
(insurance company), and awarding Rs.70,000/- with
interest @ 12% p.a.
2)It is a matter of record, Review petition
was filed being Review Petition No.15/1992, seeking
revival of the order of award of No fault liability,
however, review petition was rejected.
3)During pendency of the appeal, owner of the
vehicle, Respondent No.1 – Sopan expired.
4)Learned Counsel for the appellant/claimant
says, the claimant is an illiterate and could not
know text of what he has written in the Claim
Petition. He had simply signed it though in the
cross-examination, he accepted the claim Petition was
read over to him.
5)The nature of evidence suggest that the
claimant boarded a goods-vehicle (Matador) at its
rear side and asserts that, owing to excessive speed,
accident has taken place, causing sufferings to him,
as he came beneath the heaps of sugar bags, which
were loaded in the matador.
6)In the claim petition, the claimant has
averred, he paid Rs.2/- for such travel to the
matador driver. He desires to withdraw that
statement, however, it is not permissible. Nature of
evidence illustrate, the vehicle, in which he was
travelling, was registered as goods-vehicle. Claimant
was passenger for hire in Metador; and naturally,
contract of insurance company forbids to take care of
such travel. There was no special coverage of
insurance to get within the bracket of claim of the
3 FA No.615/1997
claimant as either a labour or a person travelling
with his goods. The record illustrate, it was not
the claimant alone, but, there were numerous
passengers in the matador.
7)In the result, the impugned order,
exonerating the insurance company, does not call for
interference. First Appeal lacks merits, dismissed.
No costs.
sd/-
(K.U.CHANDIWAL)
JUDGE
bdv/ Authenticated copy
(BD VADNERE, PS)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the award exonerating the insurance company deserves interference.
Whether the claimant was covered under the contract of insurance as a passenger for hire in a goods vehicle.
Gangaram s/o Prabhu Mundhe
Sopan s/o Nanji Chate
United India Insurance Company Ltd.
Navnath Srirang Munde
K.U.CHANDIWAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court