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

Report No. 85

4.4. Anomaly caused by present position as to owner of goods.-

We think that the present provision needs improvement. As to the owner of goods1 it may be noted that the employee of the owner of the goods is not excluded, and would be entitled to sue the insurance company.2 If so, it is illogical that the owner of the goods himself cannot sue.3

Whatever be the true construction of the present languages of the section, it seems to be anomalous that a person who legitimately travels with the goods to look after his own goods cannot avail himself of the beneficial provision of the Act. The fact that he has not made payment for carrying him as a passenger even if that be the factual situation in a particular case-should not, in our opinion, be regarded as material in legislation primarily enacted to implement a principle of social justice. From the aspect of social justice, the position should be the same whether the claimant is the owner of the goods or is an employee of the owner of the goods.

1. Para. 4.3(v), supra.

2. Vanguard Insurance Co. v. Chinnammal, AIR 1970 Mad 236.

3. Para. 4.2, supra.

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