Narrottam Sinha v. CLAIAAANTS
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
i'BLESHRi L..C. sj*^.^w^, -^, HON'BLE SUNIL KUMAR SINHA.^. Manoj Paranjpe, counsei for|the appe!lant& Heard on admission. This appeai u/s 173 of th^ Motor Vehicles Act 1988 has been being aggrieved 'oy the award dated ;r Accident Claims Tribuna!; Ralpur, in preferred by the owner and ridei^ 04.4.2007 passed by 7m Add!. Mot Ciairn Case No.40/2007 whereby]the learned Ciaims Tribunal has held -th the appeilants responsible for anjiount of compensatlon. However, insurance company has been exor|erated from its liabstity The brieffacts giving rise to|th!s appeai are that on 19.6.2005 whiie bearing riding the motorcycie hsrein, was no.1, appeilant Regn. No.C.G.04-CD-9928, in ra sn ana negligent manner, +hs tne saifl motorcycle hit against a standi| ig rickshaw on V.i.P. Road, viilage Fundhar, as a result of which Marloj Yadav who was a piilion rider on the motorcycie sustained grievous irljuries, resultantiy he d;ed.
Appeliant no.2 herein is the owner of the mjitorcycie. The motorcycie was insured with respondent no.s/Bajaj AliianzlGenerai Insurance Company Ltd. Having heard counsel for|ths appei.iants, we have perused the contents of the poiicy. The poiicypssued in favour of appeiiant no.2 was a ^aer, no additionai prernium Vi'as paid, statutory poHcy and for piilion ri ,.' cannot be held iiabie for the death of therefore, t'ne Insurance Compan learned Tribuna! has rightiy sxonerated pil'ion rider Manoj Yadav and the the Insurance t;ompany. ^Q C\i GR) '"-OjJO. s'sq' •<ii-4i<>'>*i, ®Tfly'i<s,Ric>i'y^< . M-A-^. N10- %t Wl. 200^ 3n^?r iraq; (4»)t-j»i<8T) •OT^'B.^ll^li?? wnaiRnigffiR? ^iiw^toOT^r l»l«ll<'1«<lllllfif tf f^S <fa<^l< ^siRn aii^i -•Z-- We are fortffied in our vi^w by the decision of the Apex Court reported in.the matter of United If^ -vs- Tiiak Singh and others, 2< said judgment, the Apex Court he| in Asha Rani's case [(2003), AIR SCW 1822.
In para 21 of the d that although the obsen/ations made SCC 2231 were in connection with carrying passengers in a goocis v^ force to gratuitous passengers ir| Lordships upheid the contention ihicle, the same v/ouid appiy with equal any other vehicle also. Thus, Their the appellant-lnsurance Company that it owed no iiabiiity towards the inji< riss suffered by the deceased Rajender Sing'n who v/as a piliion rider, a; poiicy, and hence it did nof cove) the insurance Poiicy was a statutory the risk of death of or bodily injury to iratuitous passengers. The appeal being devoid o^ merits is llabie to be dismissed and the same is accordingiy dismissed. Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge Radi Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge GRPRJ—FS/246—2/2007—50.UOO.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.