No Person Supposed To Share Seat Of Driver In 3-Wheeler Goods Carriage : Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court last week held that in a three-wheeler goods carriage, no other person whether a passenger or as an owner of the vehicle is supposed to share the seat of the driver and any such action is a violation of the insurance policy conditions.Justice A. Badharudeen thus set-aside the liability fastened on the insurance company by the the Motor Vehicles Tribunal to compensate such...
The Kerala High Court last week held that in a three-wheeler goods carriage, no other person whether a passenger or as an owner of the vehicle is supposed to share the seat of the driver and any such action is a violation of the insurance policy conditions.
Justice A. Badharudeen thus set-aside the liability fastened on the insurance company by the the Motor Vehicles Tribunal to compensate such a "gratuitous passenger".
The Court held,
"...if the claimant had not been travelling in the vehicle as owner of the goods, he shall not be covered by the policy of insurance. Further in a three wheeler goods carriage, the driver could not have allowed anybody else to share his seat. No other person whether a passenger or as a owner of the vehicle is supposed to share the seat of the driver and any such action is violation of the policy conditions."
Resultantly, the Court ordered that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the amount and the liability is upon the owner of the vehicle.
Background:
On 23.01.2008, while the injured was travelling in a Goods Autorickshaw sitting near the driver of the vehicle and transporting the construction goods, he met with an accident when the said Autorickshaw suddenly turned by its driver.
The injured being the original petitioner claimed Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation.
In appeal, the Insurance Company disputed liability raising contention that the injured was a gratuitous passenger in a goods vehicle. Though the appellant sought exoneration from liability, the Tribunal did not allow the same.
The case of the appellant was that the original petitioner was travelling in the goods autorickshaw involved in the accident, sharing the seat of the driver where the driver alone was permitted to travel.
However, the Tribunal had found the status of the original petitioner to be of a person accompanying the goods carried therein. This was argued to be unsustainable by the appellant.
To resolve the question, the Court referred to Sections 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act and its various interpretations in judicial precedents.
In particular, the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Baljit Kaur [2004 (2) SCC 1] had held that "any person" envisaged under S.147(1)(b)(i) shall not include any gratuitous passenger and if the claimant had not been travelling in the vehicle as owner of the goods, he shall not be covered by the policy of insurance.
Through this decision, the single Judge concluded that no gratuitous passenger can be allowed to travel in a goods vehicle and not even the owner of the vehicle can share the seat of the driver in a goods autorickshaw.
Further, the Court agreed with the petitioner that in a three-wheeler goods carriage, the driver could not have allowed anybody else to share his seat.
"No other person whether as a passenger or as an owner of the vehicle is supposed to share the seat of the driver. Violation of the condition of the contract of insurance, therefore, is approved."
Therefore it was held that the the appellant's contention for full exoneration was to be allowed.
Advocate Lal George appeared for the petitioner and Advocate T.B. Shajimon represented the respondents in the matter.
Case Title: Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd v. Bheema & Anr.