Case: National Insurance Co.Ltd Vs. Cholleti Bharatamma

Court in New India Assustance Co. Ltd. v. Satpal Singh [(2000) 1 SCC 237] wherein their Lordships held that under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 all Insurance policies covering third party risks are not required to exclude gratuitous passengers in the vehicles though the vehicle is of any type or class. Following the same, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.” 17. It is now well settled that the owner of the goods means only the person who travels in the cabin of the vehicle. In this case, the High Court had proceeded on the basis that they were gratuitous passengers. The admitted plea of the respondents themselves was that the deceased had boarded the lorry and paid an amount of Rs.20/- as transport charges. It has not been proved that the deceased was travelling in the lorry along with the driver or the cleaner as the owner of the goods. Travelling with the goods itself does not entitle anyone to protection under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act. For the reasons aforementioned, this appeal is dismissed. CA @ SLP (C) No.7248/03 18. The accident in this case took place on 3.1.1991. Twenty persons were travelling in the truck. The policy covered the risk only of the owner of the goods. Before the learned Tribunal, it was contended that the risk of the owners of the goods is covered by the policy. It was held: “On a careful consideration of the various authorities cited by the learned counsels for both the parties, Section 147, 149 Rule 277(3) and 252 of Rules framed under M.V. Act. I have no hesitation to conclude that the risk of the owner of the goods is also covered by the policy issued by the insurance companies, from the evidence of R.W.1 who is no other than the employee of R-2 as well as terms of Ex.B-2 Policy, it is obvious that the risk of the owner of the goods is covered, but it is restricted only to one person as owner of the goods. Thus, there can be no doubt that the owner of the goods can travel in the goods vehicle and if they are involved in the accident, their risk is covered subject to the terms and conditions of the policy issued by the insurance companies.” 19. The learned Tribunal, however, noticed: “Thus, the claim form corroborate the testimony of the petitioners that deceased or the injured as the case may be travelled in the vehicle as owner of goods. But it is mentioned in Ex.B-3 claim form as well as in Ex.B1 permit that the seating capacity of the lorry is only “3” including driver and cleaner which would go to show that only one passenger can travel in it...” 20. Upon considering the evidences on record, it was held: “As the permitted seating capacity of the lorry is only “3” including the driver and cleaner and as only one non-fare paying passenger as owner of goods can travel in the cabin and as the deceased has admittedly travelled in the cabin beyond seating capacity and contrary to the terms of the permit as well as Rule 252(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. I am of the view that R-2 cannot be fastened with the liability to pay compensation along with R-1 to all the injured and legal representatives of deceased. At best it is liable to pay compensation jointly and severally along with R-1 only in respect of one non-fare paying passengers, who is the owner of the goods. As per the endorsement I.M.T. 14(b) unless additional premium is paid for the number of persons who travelled in the lorry, as owners. I am of the view that R-2 cannot be fastened with liability. Further all the petitioners and deceased cannot be deemed to have travelled as owners of the paddy as the paddy is said to be in bags and orally kept in loose in the lorry and it is enough if any one of them have travelled in the lorry on behalf of all, as owner of the lorry Rule 277(3) of A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, clearly shows that no person shall be carried in the goods vehicle except as provided in the Rule under the statute and as the only person, who are permitted to carry in goods vehicles are the owner of hirer or bona fide employee of owner of hirer and total number of such persons, who could be carried in goods vehicles is not more than seven including the driver. As per Rule 252(2) person shall be carried in the cab of the vehicle beyond the seating capacity as per clause (2). No person shall be carried on the load or otherwise. Rule 4 empowers the R.T.A. to allow large number of persons to be carried. As the seating capacity of the lorry is only “3” as per Ex.B1 and B3 and as the risk of only owner of goods is covered by Ex.B2 policy, whereas about 40 to 42 persons travelled in the lorry by sitting on the load, which is not permitted and as there is no material to show that R.T.A. permitted carriage of more than seating capacity but on the other hand the permit is cancelled. I am in agreement with the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that it cannot be fastened with the liability for compensation.” 21. The High Court, however, dismissed the appeals preferred by the respondents relying upon Satpal Singh (supra). Submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent is that within the aforementioned twenty persons, it is the respondents having preferred an appeal, this Court should hold that at least the claimants-respondents are entitled to compensation as the deceased was travelling as owner of the goods. The learned Tribunal discussed the matter in great details. It is not in dispute that premium has been paid only for one person. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]The High Court, however, dismissed the appeals preferred by the respondents relying upon Satpal Singh (supra). Submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent is that within the aforementioned twenty persons, it is the respondents having preferred an appeal, this Court should hold that at least the claimants-respondents are entitled to compensation as the deceased was travelling as owner of the goods. The learned Tribunal discussed the matter in great details. It is not in dispute that premium has been paid only for one