Allianz v. RESPONDBNTS

, S.B.: HON'BLE SHRI N.K.AGARWAL. J. Present: Shri Bhaskar Payashi, counslel for the appellant. < ORAL AWARD (Passed on 20.07.2012)

Heard on admission. This insurer's appeal against the award dated 7th December, 2010 passed by the 8tfa Additional Motor Accidents ; Claims Tribunal (FTC), Durg in claim case No. 136/2009. ;^^?;

As against compensation of Rs.21,04,800/- claimed by the parents and minor sister of deceased - Bhushan Nishad by filing claim application under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (henceforth 'the Act?) for his death in the motor accident on

2.3.2009, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of claim application till its actual payment.

The Tribunal, on close scrutiny of the evidence led held: the accident had occurred due to driving of Truck bearing registration No.A.P. 16/TW/0768 by its driver - respondent No.4 - Bokam Raju; Bhushan Nishad died on account of injuries sustained by him in the said accident; the appellarrp / Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited liable for payment of compensation as it could not establish violation of policy conditions; assessed and awarded the aforesaid sum as compensation in favour of the claimants also holding the appellant/insurance company liable for payment of compensation along with respondents No.4 85 5, i.e. driver and pwner of the offending vehicle.

Shri Bhaskar Payashi, learned counsel for the appellant submits that deceased was sitting'in the truck as a gratuitous passenger and as per the policy conditions, his risk was not covered under the policy, and therefore, the Tribunal has fallen in in holding the appellant/insurance company liable for payment of compensation.

I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the award impugned. ,^^^-^'^ "" \ ^^^. ^ %g£^,1 ^:, •^"••^J '^, ~^^'"^' '^^1

I have perused the policy of insurance (Ex. D.1) issued in the case. As policy insurance (Ex.D.l), appellant/insurance company has assumed the risk of labourers by charging the premium of Rs.50/- and of two non-fair passengers by charging the premium ofRs.150/-.

True, the insurance company is not statutorily liable to the risk of gratuitous passengers sitting in the goods carriage vehicle, but there is no prohibition in assuming the risk of gratuitous passengers sitting in the goods carriage vehicle by entering into special contract with the owner of the vehicle and by charging the extra premium therefor. In the instant case, by charging extra premium, the appellant/insurance company has assumed the risk of two gratuitous passengers. Further, this fact was admitted by Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Law Officer of appellant/insurance company examined by it as its witness.

In view of above, on the face, there is no merit in the contention raised by Mr. Bhaskar Payasi and the same deserves to be rejected.

For thc reasons mentioned hereinabove, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. ,11.