SOUTH INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. HEERABAI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the South India Insurance Co. Ltd. Indore (non -applicant No. 3) under Section 110 -D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter called the Act) is directed against the award dated 1.1.1965 passed by the Claims Tribunal Indore in claim Case No. 6 of 1962 awarding Rs. 9600/ - as compensation to the dependents of one Chhotelal whose death was caused on account of an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle, on 22.6.1961.

(2.) THE facts which are not now disputed before us are that the applicant -Respondents Nos. 1 to 7 are the legal representatives, being widow and children of deceased Chhotelal; that at the relevant time Respondent No. 8 Sardar Balwant Singh (non -applicant No. 1) was the owner of the truck No. MPE 7102 and Respondent No. 9 Mohammad Hussain (non -applicant No. 2) was in his service as the driver of the said truck and the said truck was insured with the Appellant -The South India Insurance Co. Ltd. Indore (non -applicant No. 3) under the Commercial Vehicle Policy (Ex. D. 1), the period of insurance being 4.5.1960 to 3.7. 1961, both dates inclusive. The accident in question occurred on 22.6.1961, i.e. within the period during which the said policy was in force. Chhotelal was a contractor and he had taken a Theka (contract) of repairing the tar road at Mandu. He had hired the said truck from Respondent Balwantsingh for carrying a tar mixture machine belonging to the Public Works Department to Mandu for repairing the road there and the said machine was towed to the said truck. On 22.6.1961, the date of the accident, the truck being driven by the Respondent Mohammad Hussain was proceeding from Dhar towards Mandu and Chhotelal was sitting on the front seat near the driver, while the mixture machine was towed to the truck. Non -applicant Balwantsingh was also traveling in the said truck along with others. When it reached the Alamgir gate at Mandu, it dashed against the wall of the said gate with the result that Chhotelal was thrown out of the said truck sustaining serious injuries resulting in his death instantaneously.

(3.) THEY resisted the claim on various grounds. It was denied that the truck was being driven rashly or negligently. According to them the steering rod of the truck was broken near the Alamgir gate and on that account the driver lost the control and the truck dashed against the wall of the said gate as a result of which Chhotelal who was sitting on the front seat received injuries and died on the spot. It was alleged that accident arose for reasons beyond the control of the driver. On behalf of the Appellant, it was further alleged that the policy did not cover the risk of an unpaid passenger like Chhotelal and, therefore, the company was not liable for the claim in question.