Skip to main content

Insurance for owner in goods vehicle

The Hyderabad High Court has held that a person travelling in a goods transport vehicle as owner of the goods will be eligible to claim compensation from the insurance company.

Justice U. Durga Prasad Rao was upholding an award passed by the chairman of Motor Vehicle Accidents Claim Tribunal of Ananthpur in directing United India Insurance Company Ltd to pay Rs 2 lakh to the family of Tammineni Mallikarjuna, who died in an accident.

The father of the deceased submitted before the tribunal that his son, besides doing cloth business, was a paddy harvester and during October, 2000, he took his harvest to Nizamabad district for the paddy harvesting season. He told the tribunal that on October 26, 2000, his son engaged a van to transport the harvest from Nizamabad to Kesepalli in Ananthpur district and on the way driver of the van drove in a rash manner and failed to see an electric wire hanging across the road. The live wires on the outskirts of Kesepalli, touched the goods and his son who was sitting in it and the driver died on the spot.

The insurance company challenged the award on the ground that the deceased travelled in a goods transport vehicle as a passenger and hence his risk will not be covered under the terms of the policy.

Justice Durga Prasad held that tenor of cross-examination of the father by the counsel of the company would give an inference that the company did not dispute that deceased’s family owned the harvest which was being  carried by the deceased for harvesting before accident.

The judge said “It is clear that the deceased travelled on the paddy harvester as its owner. Since the towing van was towing the harvester at the time of accident. The deceased can be referred as owner of the goods with reference to crime van also." Maintaining that policy copy would show that owner of the van paid premium to give coverage to non-paid passengers, the judge ruled that the Tribunal rightly held that the deceased was owner of the goods but not as passenger.

Article referred: http://www.deccanchronicle.com/141218/nation-current-affairs/article/insurance-owner-goods-vehicle

Comments

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even