AIR 1996 SUPREME COURT 2054 ::1996 AIR SCW 2466 ::(1997) 1 ACC 123 ::1996 (4) SCC 647 ::(1996) 3 CivLJ 147 ::(1996) 3 RecCivR 304 ::1996 (114) Pun LR 87 ::(1996) ACJ 1178 ::1996 (2) TAC 429 ::1996 (2) CurCC 373 ::1996 (3) All WC 1313 ::1996 (3) CPR 222 ::(1996) 2 CPJ 28 ::1996 ( ) CCJ 743 ::1998 (94) Com Cas 278 ::1997 (2) ICC 37 ::(1996) 2 CTC 228 (SC) ::1996 (2) CTC 228 ::(1997) 1 Mad LJ 5 ::(1997) 1 Raj LW 128 ::1996 (2) OrissaLR 148 ::(1996) 3 Pun LR 87 ::1997 (2) GujLR 1382 ::(1996) 6 JT 32 (SC)

Supreme Court Of India

Hon'ble Judge(s): M. M. Punchhi, K. S. Paripoornan , JJ

Motor Vehicles Act (59 of 1988) , S.147— Liability of insurance company - Head on collision - Damage caused to vehicle - Claim by truckowner - Alleged breach of carrying humans in a goods' vehicle more than the number permitted in terms of insurance policy - Is not so fundamental a breach so as to afford to the insurer to eschew liability altogether - Exclusion term of insurance policy read down to serve main purpose of policy. It is plain from the terms of the Insurance Policy that the insured vehicle was entitled to carry 6 workmen, excluding the driver. If those 6 workmen when travelling in the vehicle, are assumed not to have increased any risk from the point of view of the Insurance Company on occurring of an accident, how could those added persons be said to have contributed to the causing of it is the poser, keeping apart the load it was carrying. It was not alleged that the driver of the insured vehicle was responsible for the accident. In fact, it was not disputed that the coming vehicle had collided head-on against the insured vehicle, which resulted in the damage. Merely by lifting a person or two, or even three, by the driver or the cleaner of the vehicle, without the knowledge of owner, cannot be said to be such a fundamental @page-SC2055 breach that the owner should; in all events, be denied indemnification. Th....