ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. Vs. KHUDI DEVI
LAWS(HPH)-1997-3-40
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Decided on March 27,1997

ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. Appellant
VERSUS
KHUDI DEVI Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD V,USHA RANI AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD VS. SATYANATH HAZARIKA [REFERRED TO]
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD VS. LACHHMI DEVI [REFERRED TO]
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD VS. BHAJNOO [REFERRED TO]
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. SUKHA DEVI [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)There carried for hire and reward by the Driver, of the 1st respondent, without the knowledge of the owner, of the 2nd respondent. It is not possible to accept the contention of the petitioner as reliance is placed only on one part of the statement contained in the reply of the owner and not the other part, if any reliance is to be placed on the statement contained in the reply, the entire sentence must be taken together and considered.
(2.)As the scope of this petition before me is very limited, it is not necessary for me to discuss in detail the question urged before me. This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, as pointed out earlier. The only question which have to consider is whether the award of the Tribunal is liable to be interfered with on account of an error apparent or any illegality or material irregularity committed by the Tribunal while considering the issues, which arose for decision.
(3.)I find that the Tribunal has discussed the question on the basis of the decisions rendered by this Court earlier in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v Bhajnoo and another, 1996 ACJ 367 and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Lachhmi Devi and others, 1996 ACJ 496 The Tribunal also made a reference to the judgment of the Special Bench of five Judges of the Gauhati High Court in The New India Assurance Co Ltd v. Satsanath Hazarika and others, (1989) II ACC 409 and that of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd v, Usha Rani and others, J996 ACJ 89. ft is not necessary to refer to all those judgments in detail. Suffice it to point out that the two judgments of this Court mentioned earlier are of Division Benches, in which the Court has expressed opinion that even if the passengers are carried for hire or reward in a goods vehicle, the Insurance Company cannot escape its liability when there is no evidence that the passengers were carried for hire and that they were carried without the authority of the owner or the Driver, The Court held that when (here was no acceptable evidence that the owner gave specific instructions to the Driver not to carry any passenger, the Insurance Company would be liable Reliance is placed on earlier judgment of this Court in United India Insurance Co Ltd v. Sukha Devi, 1995 ACJ 796. In such circumstances, I am not persuaded to hold that this case warrants interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as the Tribunal has been guided only by the judgments of this Court and the judgment of the other Courts, referred to earlier,


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.