Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Gollu Somi Naidu and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- cantonments act[c.a. no. 41/2006]. section 346 & cantonment fund (servants rules, 1937, rules 13, 14 & 15: [h.l. gokhale, ag. cj, p.v. hardas, naresh h. patil, r.m. borde & r.m. savant, jj] jurisdiction of school tribunal constituted under maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, (3 of 1978) held, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state board. the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the maharashtra act cannot entertain appeals filed under section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the cantonment board. teacher employed in the school run by cantonment board being covered under rule 2 (f) of the cantonment fund servants rules, 1937 can file appeal under rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [deolali cantonment board v usha devidas dongre, 1993 mah. lj 74; 1993 lab ic 1858 overruled]. -- maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, 1978 [act no. 3/1978]. sections 9 & 2(21): jurisdiction 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 namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the director or by any such boards, is included in the latter part of section 2(21), such boards will be of the level of the state board or the divisional board. the boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which primary schools are operating. thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. section 2(21) of the act defines the term recognised. the last clause therein is by any of such boards. the term such is defined in oxford dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. therefore, the term such board will have to mean a divisional board of or the level of divisional board or the state board. the divisional board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. the state board advises the state government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. the cantonment board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other board or body under the cantonments act discharging any such duties. the duties of the cantonment board are laid down in section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. the cantonment board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. therefore, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state board. that being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the act. for the reasons state above, the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the act cannot entertain appeals filed under section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the cantonment board. [deolali cantonment board v usha devidas dongre, 1993 mah.lj 74; 1993 lab ic 1858 overruled]. - 6. the ground that the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation in respect of a fare-paid passenger travelling in a goods vehicle is no more a good ground in view of the judgment of the supreme court in the case of new india assurance co.ordern.v. raman, j.1. this appeal is filed by the united india insurance company limited, aggrieved by the order, dated 6-1-1997 in o.p. no. 11/1996 on the file of the motor accidents claims tribunal, vizianagaram.2. when the 1st respondent herein was travelling in a van bearing no. and 5704 on 1-3-1991, it turned turtle near gavarammapeta village because of the rash and negligent driving of its driver, the 2nd respondent herein, due to which the 1st respondent sustained injuries all over his body. he, therefore, laid a claim in the above said o.p., for a compensation of rs. 80,000/-. the tribunal, after considering the evidence on record, found that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the 2nd respondent. it awarded a compensation of rs. 25,000/- to the 1st respondent with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the petition till the date of deposit, and held that the appellant the 2nd and the 3rd respondents herein were jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.3. aggrieved by this order, the insurance company has preferred the present appeal.4. the only ground urged by the appellant is that the 1st respondent was a fare-paid passenger travelling in a goods vehicle and, therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation as the owner-of the vehicle had violated the conditions of the insurance policy.5. the tribunal considered the evidence on record and found that the deceased was a fare-paid passenger travelling in the goods vehicle. the insurance company did not examine any one and it also did not mark any document. on the overall view of the matter, the tribunal awarded the compensation as mentioned supra.6. the ground that the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation in respect of a fare-paid passenger travelling in a goods vehicle is no more a good ground in view of the judgment of the supreme court in the case of new india assurance co. ltd. v. satpal singh, 2000(1) ald 50 (s.c.) = 2000(2) alt 2.4 (dn sc). the apex court held in that case that a fare-paid passenger travelling in a goods vehicle is also entitled to compensation and the insurance company cannot escape its liability. the insurance company is also jointly and severally liable to pay compensation along with the owner of the vehicle. in this view of the matter, the appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed. no costs.

Judgment:
ORDER

N.V. Raman, J.

1. This appeal is filed by the United India Insurance Company Limited, aggrieved by the order, dated 6-1-1997 in O.P. No. 11/1996 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Vizianagaram.

2. When the 1st respondent herein was travelling in a van bearing No. AND 5704 on 1-3-1991, it turned turtle near Gavarammapeta village because of the rash and negligent driving of its driver, the 2nd respondent herein, due to which the 1st respondent sustained injuries all over his body. He, therefore, laid a claim in the above said O.P., for a compensation of Rs. 80,000/-. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence on record, found that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the 2nd respondent. It awarded a compensation of Rs. 25,000/- to the 1st respondent with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the petition till the date of deposit, and held that the appellant the 2nd and the 3rd respondents herein were jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

3. Aggrieved by this order, the Insurance Company has preferred the present appeal.

4. The only ground urged by the appellant is that the 1st respondent was a fare-paid passenger travelling in a goods vehicle and, therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation as the owner-of the vehicle had violated the conditions of the insurance policy.

5. The Tribunal considered the evidence on record and found that the deceased was a fare-paid passenger travelling in the goods vehicle. The Insurance Company did not examine any one and it also did not mark any document. On the overall view of the matter, the Tribunal awarded the compensation as mentioned supra.

6. The ground that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation in respect of a fare-paid passenger travelling in a goods vehicle is no more a good ground in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Satpal Singh, 2000(1) ALD 50 (S.C.) = 2000(2) ALT 2.4 (DN SC). The Apex Court held in that case that a fare-paid passenger travelling in a goods vehicle is also entitled to compensation and the Insurance Company cannot escape its liability. The Insurance Company is also jointly and severally liable to pay compensation along with the owner of the vehicle. In this view of the matter, the appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs.