NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. Vs. SHAKUNTLA DEVI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, New India Assurance Company, an insurer under Sec. 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is aggrieved of the judgment dated 16-11-1994 in File No. 328/Claims of 1993 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jammu whereby an award of Rs. 2,88,000.00has been passed against it in favour of respondents Nos. 1 to 4 relating to an accident which occurred on 2-2-1993 resulting in the death of one Raj Paul, husband of respondent No. 1 and father of respondents Nos. 2 to 4. Relating to this death arising out of said accident, these respondents had preferred the claim petition under Sec. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which on being allowed, the award as indicated above came to be passed. The following five issues were framed by the Tribunal on 16-12-93

(2.) During the course of hearing of this appeal, Shri R. K. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant confined his challenge to the award only with regard to its finding on issue No. 4. No other point was urged.

(3.) Mr. Gupta submitted that the Tribunal erred in deciding issue No. 4 against the appellant by mis-interpreting Sec. 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. According to him since the deceased Raj Paul was travelling in a truck as a labourer, the policy of insurance in respect of the vehicle in question did not cover the liability for such death of such a person in a truck and, because of the absence of any such cover of liability, the Assurance Company was not and could not have been held to be liable to indemnify the insured in respect of the award obtained against it by the claimants in the claim petition. It was submitted, undoubtedly by a special contract of insurance, labourers in the truck could be covered by payment of additional premium, but in this case since the additional premium was paid only to the extent of Rs. 30.00, the coverage of the risk was for two persons, i. e. the driver and the cleaner, because it was for these two persons, the additional special premium of Rs. 15.00 each total Rs. 30.00 was paid by the insured. Mr. Gupta argued that undoubtedly, the insured could extend the coverage for other labourers as well (all of them not exceeding the maximum number of 7) by paying extra premium but since that was not done, the coverage could not be deemed to be in existence, absolving the Assurance Company of any liability for any such risk. Dealing with this question, the Tribunal in a slip shod manner, decided issue No. 4 against the appellant by referring to a judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Kanna Kanti Vs. Puli Ramakaliah reported in 1990 ACJ 539. The reasoning given by the Tribunal is absolutely erroneous and reliance placed on the aforesaid judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court is totally out of context. That however, does not mean that the appellant should succeed in the appeal. Issue No. 4 in any case has to be decided against the appellant, but for totally different reason.