(2012) 2 ACC 536 ::(2012) ACJ 211 ::(2012) 3 TAC 673 ::2011 AAC 500 (AP) ::(2011) 1 AndhLD 686

Andhra Pradesh High Court

Hon'ble Judge(s): B. Prakash Rao, R. Kantha Rao , JJ

( A ) Motor Vehicles Act (59 of 1988) S. 168 — Composite negligence — Head on collision between tractor and car — Evidence by eye-witness who was coming along with the deceased in car drivers of both the vehicles were at fault — Plea by driver of tractor that he was not rash and did not receive any injuries was unacceptable as, if such was case he could have as well lodged the F.I.R. with the police stating that the accident took place solely on account of rash and negligent driving of the car driver, but he did not do so — Finding by Tribunal that drivers of both the vehicles are responsible for the accident, proper — However, apportionment of liability as 75% and 25% on drivers of car and tractor respectively was without any basis — Liability apportioned as 50% each. (Paras11to14)

( B ) Motor Vehicles Act (59 of 1988) S. 147 — Compensation — Liability of insurer — Head on collision between car and tractor — Insurance policy of car is Act policy — No extra premium was paid to cover risk of inmates of car by owner of vehicle — Owner of car alone is liable to pay 50% of compensation awarded to claimants — Finding by Tribunal that phrase ‘any person’ under an Act policy under Section 147 includes even a gratuitous passenger and therefore, insurance company is liable to pay compensation — Liable to be set aside.It is obvious that even if the policy is Act only policy, it does not cover the risk of the owner, driver or any other inmates of the car. However, to cover the risk of any such persons, the owner and the insurance company are not prohibited to extent the terms of contract when the owner of the vehicle pays extra premium to cover such risk. Therefore, unless and until the liability arises either under Section 147 of the Act or under the terms of contract of insurance, the risk of the owner of any gratuitous passenger travelling in the vehicle of the owner is not covered merely because it is an Act policy. (Paras17 1920).....