S. Jayamma and ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....of school tribunal whether a school run by cantonment board is not a recognised school within the meaning of section 2(21)? - held, the act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the act shall apply to all private schools in the state whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the state government or not. private school is defined in section 2(2) of the act as a recognised school established or administered by a management other than the government or a local authority. recognised means recognised by director, the divisional board or state board. thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four directors, the divisional boards and four state boards. the second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by director or by any of such boards. the question to be examined is whether school run by the cantonment board could be said to be one run by any such boards. a private school has to be recognised by the state or the divisional board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. when this phrase.....orderg. yethirajulu, j.1. this civil miscellaneous petition has been filed by the claimants under order 9 rule 9 of c.p.c. to set aside the judgment passed by this court in cma no. 135 of 2000, dated 8-9-2003.2. heard the learned counsel for the petitioners/claimants and the learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the insurance company.3. cma no. 135 of 2000 was allowed by this court on 8-9-2003, which reads as under:this appeal is preferred by the oriental insurance company limited, hyderabad, against the order of the motor accident claims tribunal, nalgonda, in o.p. no. 759 of 1991.the deceased by name sailoo died in a motorcycle accident by, falling from the motorcycle, while travelling as a pillion rider, on 11-10-1990. his wife, minor son and parents made an application under section 166 of the motor vehicles act, claiming compensation of rs. 1,50,000/-. the tribunal awarded rs. 1,50,000/- as prayed, making the owner and the insurance company liable to pay the compensation amount. the insurance company being aggrieved by the order of the tribunal preferred this appeal challenging its validity.the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the deceased while.....

Judgment:

ORDER

G. Yethirajulu, J.

1. This civil miscellaneous petition has been filed by the claimants under Order 9 Rule 9 of C.P.C. to set aside the judgment passed by this Court in CMA No. 135 of 2000, dated 8-9-2003.

2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners/claimants and the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company.

3. CMA No. 135 of 2000 was allowed by this Court on 8-9-2003, which reads as under:

This appeal is preferred by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Hyderabad, against the order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nalgonda, in O.P. No. 759 of 1991.

The deceased by name Sailoo died in a motorcycle accident by, falling from the motorcycle, while travelling as a pillion rider, on 11-10-1990. His wife, minor son and parents made an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/-. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1,50,000/- as prayed, making the owner and the Insurance Company liable to pay the compensation amount. The Insurance Company being aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal preferred this appeal challenging its validity.

The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the deceased while travelling as a pillion rider slept during the running of the motorcycle due to which he slipped from the motorcycle and succumbed to the injuries received in the accident.

The learned Counsel for the appellant further submitted that since the pillion rider cannot be treated as a third party to the vehicle and as the owner of the vehicle obtained an Act policy, the risk of the pillion rider cannot be covered under the policy. Therefore, the appellant is not liable to pay any amount.

The learned Counsel for the appellant relied on a judgment of the Orissa High Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Ashok Kumar Acharya and Ors. : AIR1994Ori220 , wherein the High Court held that the Insurance Company cannot be made liable for the risk of the pillion rider as he is not a third party in respect of the motorcycle. After verification of Ex.B.1-copy of the Insurance Policy, I am convinced that it is an Act policy. The accident occurred due to slip of the deceased on the road, while the motorcycle was proceeding. The claimants attributed rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the motorcycle, but since the insurance covered is only under the Act policy, the risk of the pillion rider cannot be fastened to the Insurance Company. Therefore, I find sufficient force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant.

In the result, the appeal is allowed. The order of the Tribunal to the extent of making the Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount is set aide. The order of the Tribunal remains undisturbed in other respects.

4. Now, the learned Counsel for the claimants relied on a judgment of this Court in United India Insurance Co. Limited v. Parpudi Krishna Kumari and Ors. 2003 (1) TAC 170 (AP), wherein a learned Single Judge of this Court held that the deceased-pillion rider being a gratuitous passenger covered under the policy and directed the Insurance Company to pay compensation and requested to dismiss the appeal by confirming the order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nalgonda.

5. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the Insurance Company relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court in United India Insurance Co. Limited v. Tilak Singh : AIR2006SC1576 , wherein the Supreme Court held that the Insurance Company has no liability towards the injuries suffered by the pillion rider as the Insurance Policy was a statutory policy and it did not cover the risk of the death or bodily injury to a gratuitous passenger.

6. In the light of the above judgment of the Supreme Court, the decision rendered by this Court cannot be followed.

7. In view of the above legal position, I do not find any ground to set aside the judgment of this Court dated 8-9-2003 passed in CMA No. 135 of 2000 and the civil miscellaneous petition is liable to be dismissed.

8. Accordingly, the civil miscellaneous petition is dismissed. No costs.