Injury while sharing drivers seat in auto rickshaw exonerates insurer of liability: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court recently held that if any person, whether as passenger or as owner of the vehicle, shares the seat of the driver of a three wheeler goods carriage, the same violates insurance policy conditions [Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd v. Bheema & Anr.]..Single judge Justice A Badharudeen, therefore, set aside the liability imposed on an insurance company by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) to compensate a person who was injured while sharing the driver's seat of a goods auto rickshaw.The Court held that no person, owner or otherwise, can claim compensation if they were sharing the driver's seat of a goods auto rickshaw at the time of meeting with an accident. "Further in a three wheeler goods carriage, the driver could not have allowed anybody else to share his seat. No other person, whether a passenger or as an owner of the vehicle is supposed to share the seat of the driver and any such action is violation of the policy conditions. Here, the case put up by the appellant/insurer is that, the injured was accompanying the Goods Autorickshaw along with construction goods to the work site after sharing the seat of the driver and met with an accident during this course. (The insurance) policy would show that the seating capacity of the vehicle involved in the accident is one person and nobody is permitted to travel in the said Goods Autorickshaw, other than the driver," the Court said..The Court passed the order on an appeal filed by an insurance company which had disputed the compensation claimed by the first respondent who was injured while travelling in a goods auto rickshaw sharing the driver's seat of the vehicle while it was transporting construction goods.The insurer had first approached the MACT seeking exoneration from liability, on the ground that the injured was a gratuitous passenger in a goods vehicle.However, the tribunal did not allow the appeal as it found that the injured person has the status of a person accompanying the goods carried in the vehicle.This prompted the insurer to approach the High Court, through advocate Lal George, contending that the finding of the MACT is unsustainable and seeking full exoneration of the liability set upon it. .The Court referred to various decisions of the Supreme Court on Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Reliance was placed on decision of the top court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Baljit Kaur in which it was held that the term "any person” envisaged under S.147(1)(b)(i) will not include any gratuitous passenger and that if the claimant had not been travelling in the vehicle as owner of the goods, he shall not be covered by the policy of insurance. The Court inferred that no gratuitous passenger can be allowed to travel in a goods vehicle and not even the owner of the vehicle can share the seat of the driver in a goods auto rickshaw.Thus, it concluded that the law in no more res integra on the point that if the claimant had not been travelling in the vehicle as owner of the goods, he shall not be covered by the policy of insurance.Moreover, the Court found force in the contention of the petitioner and stated that, "No other person whether as passenger or as owner of the vehicle is supposed to share the seat of the driver and the said action is violation of the condition of the contract of insurance.".The Court, therefore, concluded that the contention raised by the appellant urging full exoneration is to be allowed and set aside the decision of the MACT.It also ordered that the insurance company is not liable to pay the amount and the liability is upon the owner of the vehicle..[Read Judgment]