NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD Vs. EREGOUDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard the appellant learned advocate as also the respondents' learned advocate. The incident had taken place in the year 1985 and the Tribunal had awarded a compensation of Rs. 16,000/ -. The respondent who is an agriculturist is supposed to have been waiting at the bus stop along with another person when a truck approached that place and the cleaner of the truck shouted out to the waiting persons that anyone who desires to be taken in the truck should get in. According to the respondents who are the original claimants, they had visited Hassan and had made certain purchases and they were on their way to their village, and when the truck stopped they boarded the truck along with the material that they had purchased which in this case happens to be jaggery and coconuts. While proceeding, the truck was driven in such a manner that instead of travelling on the road it dashed against a tree and the two occupants who were agriculturists sustained injuries. The present order arises out of the claim petition filed by them. The present respondent had sustained one injury of some consequence namely fracture of the public bone apart from two other minor injuries and came to be awarded compensation of Rs. 16,000/ -. The appeal had been preferred by the Insurance Company and, is directed against that order.

(2.) THE appellant's learned advocate has advanced a submission on a point of law in so far as he submits that it is well settled that no passengers are permitted to be carried in a goods vehicle and he submits that in the present instance it is undisputed that the truck was a goods vehicle and that the two claimants were unauthorised occupants of that vehicle. He relies on the observation made by the Tribunal wherein the reference to what they were carrying is described as luggage" and learned advocate submits that this clearly puts the claimants within the category of a passenger who was in the course of travel and was carrying certain belongings of his which answer to the definition of "luggage". He points out "that the term "goods" has been defined in the Act and that consequently what was being carried by the claimant cannot answer to the description of goods and so far as it was his luggage or personal belongings even if the claimant was accompanying them, he would not come within the exclusion as enunciated by the Division bench. He therefore submits that the very basis of the order awarding compensation is unjustified in so far as the liabilities are not covered by the policy and therefore, the order passed against the Insurance Company will have to be set aside.

(3.) THE respondents learned advocate has met this argument by pointing out to me that even though the learned Member has used the expression "luggage" that the Court will have to scrutinise the record and he demonstrates to me that the items which were being carried were not parcel or personal belongings but that it consisted of rice, coconut and jaggery. He submits that these items would be definitely within the definition of goods and that the overall evidence is to the effect that the claimant had purchased them and was on his way to his village. He submits that if the claimant transported these goods in the truck as there was no need for him to hire the whole of a vehicle for that small quantity and that he accompanied those goods, that he would come within the exclusion as carved out by the Division Bench. Having scrutinised the record, I am in agreement with the respondents' learned advocate that the incorrect description by the learned Member cannot disqualify the claimant from compensation.