JUDGMENT RELATED TO GOODS VEHICLE AND MV ACT

 

JUDGMENT RELATED TO GOODS VEHICLE AND MV ACT

 

Goods as defined u/s 2(13):1Package policy passenger

Risk liabilityof IC cow and calf – animal -  cattle - claimant

travelling along with his cattle whether IC is liable? Held ; yes u/s 2 (13) of MV Act, goods includes, livestock

2011 ACJ 1464 (KAR)

1ALivestock (goat) is covered under the definition of goods? Held ;Yes.

2021 ACJ 123 (Mad)

2Ganesh idol whether falls within the definition of goods. held

–yes

2011 ACJ 2091 (KAR)

2AMembers of the music band travelling along with their

musical instruments – whether musical instruments can

be treated as Goods?Held ; Yes.

2019 ACJ 272 (Bom)

3 – Injured was travelling in the good vehicle and sharing

front driver seat with the driver – his claim is to      the effect that he was travelling in the vehicle as the owner of the goods – whether sustainable? Held ;No. When sitting capacity is limited to one person, owner of the goods can’t be allowed to sit in the goods vehicle.

2017 ACJ 2169 (Ker)

 Goods Vehicle and Gratuitous Passengers:

1Goods vehicle owner/labourers coming back in the same vehicle after unloading the goods to the particular destination accident while in the return journey whether IC is liable. Held ; yes as claimant can’t be treated as unauthorized passengers

2008 ACJ 1381(P&H), 2011 ACJ 1550 (P&H)

2Passenger risk owner of goods sharing seat with driver of auto rickshaw as there was no separate seat available liability of IC whether is there violation of IP? Held ; yes. Owner alone is liable order of pay and recover

2008 ACJ 1741 (SC), 2001 ACJ 1656 (KER)

3Whether a person who hired a goods carriage vehicle

would come within purview of Subsec. 1 of S. 147 of

the Act although no goods of his as such were carried

in the vehicle claimant respondent hired an auto

rickshaw which was goods carriage vehicle and he was

sitting by the side of the driver held, if a person

has been traveling in a capacity other than the owner

of goods, the insurer would not be liable it is well settled that term 'any person' envisaged under the said provision shall not include any gratuitous passenger in a three wheeler goods carriage, driver could not have allowed anybody else to share his seat Tribunal and High Court should have held that owner

of vehicle is guilty of breach of conditions of policy

2008(12) SCC 657

4Goods Vehicle Owner paid Rs.50 to cover risk of non fare

Passenger No evidence that claimant was travelling in the goods vehicle as gratuitous passenger IC held liable to pay amount of compensasion.

2014 ACJ 974 (Mad)

5Goods Vehicle IC exonerated but Tribunal passed and

order of Pay and Recover Whether sustainable? Held ; Yes.

2014 ACJ 1224. AIR 2017 SC 1204 = 2017 ACJ 1031

(SC) – Manuara Khatun vs. Rajesh Kr. Singh. OI Com.

V/s. Brij Mohan, 2007 ACJ 1909 (SC). 2018 ACJ 1953

(Bom). 2019 ACJ 2802 – Anu Bhanvara v/s. Iffco Tokio

GIC (SC).

6Tractor ‘A’ dashed with Tractor ‘B’4 passengers of

Tractor ‘B’ got injured insurance company sought to

avoid its liability on the ground that they were

gratuitous passengers whether sustainable held – no IC

of Tractor ‘A’ is liable as 4 passengers of Tractor ‘B’ were the third party for Tractor ‘A’

2011 ACJ 2463 (MP)

7Marriage party along with dowry articles in the goods

Vehicle whether gratuitous passengers held –no IC

is liable

2011 ACJ 2319 (GUJ), 2012 AAC 3211 (Bom)

But also see 2009(2) SCC 75 – U.I.A.com v/s Rattani contrary

view by SC Recent decision of Gujarat High Court in the case of O.I.Com v.s Chaturaben Bhurabhai Pipaliya, F.A. 2741 of

2008, dated 03.04.2013 (MDSJ), 2013 ACJ 2823

8Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 S.147 liability of insurer claim

petition filed by respondent, a labourer, slipped down from trolley of tractor, allegedly was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver, came under the wheels thereof injuring his gallbladder and left thigh, as a result where of

he suffered grievous injuries – tractor was supposed to be used for agricultural purpose held ; no insurance cover in respect of trolley tractor was insured only for agricultural work, excluding digging of earth and brickkiln purpose thus, claim, not maintainable as respondent was mere a gratuitous passenger, not covered under S. 147 however, considering empowrish condition and disability,insurer directed to satisfy the award with right to realize same from owner.