Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 11799 of 2014 Petitioner :- The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another Respondent :- Permanent Lok Adalat Azamgarh & Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Singh Counsel for Respondent :- S.C.,R.K. Paramhans Singh,Sanjeev Kumar Shukla
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat dated 12.2.2013 in allowing the claim of respondent no. 2 is being challenged in the present writ petition with the assertion that the damaged vehicle namely the truck in question bearing Tata Chassis No. 382333 KTTZ 828194 was being plied in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.
It is vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that it has come in evidence that 7 persons were travelling in the truck at the time of accident i.e. on 7.3.2010.
It is admitted case of respondent no. 2 that 9 cattle were being carried in the truck in question for a Cattle fair to Junedganj Faizabad from the District Azamgarh. While truck was being driven, it had met with an accident on banging with a tree which has caused damage to the truck. The date of occurrence of the accident is not disputed. The fact that 9 cattle were being carried in the truck i.e. the damaged vehicle is also not disputed. It is also not disputed that 6 out of 9 cattle had died in the said accident. Further the fact that the livestock are included in the definition of "goods" under Section 2(13) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1988") is also not disputed.
Only ground to assail the award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat is that under the insurance policy apart from the driver, three other persons including owner and two employees were covered. Under clause 1(3) of the insurance policy, user of the Goods vehicle for carrying passengers is prohibited.
As per Rule 101 of the Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules, 1998"), apart from the owner or the hirer or a bona fide employee of the owner or hirer of the vehicle, no other person can travel in the goods carriage.
It is, thus, contended that in view of the fact that 7-8 persons, who were stated to be the owners of the cattle/livestock, were admittedly travelling in the truck in question, there cannot be any other conclusion but that the truck was being plied in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and contrary to the Motor Vehicle Rules.
And in the event of violation of the terms of the insurance policy, the insurance company/the petitioner would not be liable to indemnify for the damage of the truck.
Learned counsel for the respondent no. 2, on the other hand, placing the findings returned by the Permanent Lok Adalat on the issue of persons other than the driver, owner and employees being travelling in the truck, submits that only three persons as per the seating capacity of the cabin of the truck were there.
Other persons travelling in the truck were owners of the cattle and were present to take care of their animals. Mere fact that they were travelling in the truck alongwith the livestock, it cannot be said that they were passengers of the vehicle and that the truck was plied in violation of the insurance policy.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Having noticed the fact that there is no dispute with regard to the fact of occurrence of the accident; livestock being taken for a cattle fair in the truck at the time of accident, mere fact that 3-5 other persons were travelling in the truck so as to look after their animals, would not bring them within the meaning of gratuitous passengers. It is not the case of the petitioner that those persons were not travelling in the truck for any other purpose than to look after their cattle.
In other words, when the fact that the truck was being used for carrying livestock which is included in the definition of "goods" as per sub-section (13) of Section 2 of the Act, 1988 is not disputed, the owners of the cattle being present in the truck would not be a reason to say that the truck was being driven in violation of the insurance policy or the Rule 101 of the Rules, 1998.
For the aforesaid, no infirmity is found in the award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat dated 12.2.2013. While upholding the award, the present writ petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 31.10.2018 Brijesh