Login : Advocate | Client
Home Post Your Case My Account Law College Law Library

Report No. 85

4.3. Persons excluded by virtue of section 91(1), proviso.-

It would be helpful to consider who are the persons excluded from the scope of the benefits. The following seem to be some of the principal examples of persons so excluded:-

By virtue of clause (i) of the proviso, the policy shall not be required to cover liability arising to an employee in the course of employment, except in certain specified cases. By virtue of clause (ii) of the proviso, the following are excluded from the requirement to cover liability in relation to them:

(i) Passenger of A Private Car Carried Gratuitously1

A gratuitous passenger sustaining injuries in an accident is not covered because (unless he is travelling in pursuance of a contract of employment), section 95(1), proviso (ii), would exclude him2. However, according to certain decisions,3-4 where the policy is so drawn as to cover gratuitous passengers, then the insurer would be liable even for bodily injury or death caused to a gratuitous passenger.5

(ii) Ticketless traveller

The question whether a ticketless traveller is entitled to the benefit of the provisions of the Act was raised in one case before the Supreme Court,6 but having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it was not necessary to investigate it.

(iii) Hirer of a truck

The hirer of a truck is not covered, because section 95(1), proviso (ii), excludes him.7 While reaching this conclusion, the Calcutta High Court did describe the position as 'unfortunate'.

(iv) Owner of goods, travelling with the goods

Two High Courts have taken the view that an owner travelling along with his goods in the goods vehicle cannot recover the insurer compensation for death or personal injury.8-9 This view has been taken on a construction of section 95(1), proviso (ii). In contrast, according to a Karnataka case,10 the owner travelling with his goods really pays for his own carriage also, and is covered.

1. Cf. K. Gopalakrishnan v. Sankaraman, AIR 1968 Mad 436.

2. (a)Pushpabai v. Ranjit C. & P. Co., AIR 1977 SC 1735 (1746), para. 20; (b)Hira Devi v. Bhaba Kant, AIR 1977 Gau 31 (38), paras. 19, 20 (FB); (c) Jam Shree Satii Digvijay Singh ft v. Daud Tyabi, AIR 1978 Guj 153 (154), paras. 26, 27; (d)Subhash Chander v. State of Haryana, AIR P&H 54 (56), para. 9 (reviews cases).

3. New India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mohinder Lal, (1978) Accident Claims Journal 10.

4. Assam Corporation v. Bivu Rani, AIR 1975 Gau 3, referred to also in Hira Devi v. Bhaba Kant, AIR 1977 Gau 31 (38), paras. 19, 20 (FB).

5. Premier Assurance Co. v. Parameshwarbai, AIR 1976 Pat 187.

6. Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corp. v. Zenibhai, AIR 1977 SC 2206.

7. Indian Mutual General Insurance Co. v. Manzoor Ashan, AIR 1977 Cal 34 (37), para. 17.

8. South Indian Insurance Company v. Subramaniam, AIR 1972 Mad 49 (52), paras. 5 and 6.

9. Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. v. Gurdev Kaur, AIR 1967 Punj 486 (490) (FB).

10. Channappa v. Laxman, AIR 1979 Kam 93 (103) (May). See also T.M. Renukappa v. Fahmida, AIR 1980 Karn 25 (Feb).

Claims for Compensation under Chapter 8 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 Back

Client Area | Advocate Area | Blogs | About Us | User Agreement | Privacy Policy | Advertise | Media Coverage | Contact Us | Site Map
powered and driven by neosys