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

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.

Procedure to be followed on admissibility of additional evidence at appeal stage

In The Corporation of Madras vs M. Parthasarathy & Ors., the trial court had allowed the respondent company to file evidence in the form of photocopies and had dismissed all the four suits filed by the respondents with costs as the evidence were in the form of photocopies and were objected to by the respondents. On appeal the Additional District Judge allowed the respondents to file additional evidence in the form the original documents of the earlier admitted photocopies and based on the same allowed the appeal. In its turn the High Court also dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants who in turn approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided that the first Appellate Court committed two jurisdictional errors in allowing the appeals.  Referring to earlier judgements of the Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board vs. H. Narayanaiah & Ors., , Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. vs. Surendra Oil & Dal Mills (Refineri...