NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD Vs. SHANTHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT was the insurer of bus bearing registration no. KA 02 9900. The said bus has met with an accident on 7-5-2000, on account of which, one Raja alias Raju having sustained fatal injuries, has later succumbed. His legal representatives, respondents 3 to 7 herein, had filed a claim petition under S. 166 of the motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act')against the appellant in the Motor Accident claims Tribunal-V, Bangalore City (for short tribunal') claiming compensation. The tribunal considering the said claim petition along with another claim petition, filed by another injured person in the said accident, by its common judgment and separate award, has awarded in favour of the LRs of Raja alias raju, Rs. 3,61,400/- with interest at 8% per annum, fastening the liability to pay, on the appellant. Being aggrieved, the appellant has filed this appeal.

(2.) HEARD Sri R. Jaiprakash, learned counsel for the appellant and Sriyuths Rajanna and sripad V. Shastry, learned counsel for the respondents 3 to 7. We also perused the record maintained by the Tribunal.

(3.) SHRI R. Jaiprakash, learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the vehicle involved in the accident is a public service vehicle, the deceased admittedly was a cleaner in the vehicle and hence the appellant was not required to cover the risk of a cleaner under S. 147 of the Act. Learned counsel relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble supreme Court in the case of Ramashray singh v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. , reported in AIR 2003 SC 2877, to contend that the risk of the cleaner working in a public service vehicle cannot be, held to have been covered under the policy. Learned counsel contended that the Tribunal without examining the relevant provisions, has illegally fastened the liability on the appellant. Learned counsel submitted that, in pursuance of the suo motu order passed by this Court on 27-6-2006, the appellant has produced the policy issued in respect of the said vehicle covering the period from 24-12-1991 to 23-12-2000, from the perusal of which, it is clear that the risk of a person employed as a cleaner is not covered.