The second defence is in respect of breach of permit
which is covered by section 66 (1) of the Act. When the court
considers such defence it is expected to consider the facts of the
case in hand. The case in which the victim was 'third party'
needs to be dealt with from different angle and different
approach is required to be taken in the case, than the case in
which defence is of such breach and the victim was present on
the offending vehicle, he was not third party. It is true that when
the claim is made by a person victim who was on offending
vehicle and he wants to get compensation from Insurance
Company also, the initial burden is on him to show that he was
authorised to board the vehicle and travel in the vehicle. He can
show that he was either the owner of goods which he was
carrying in the vehicle or he was employee of the owner and he
was covered under the contract of insurance between the owner
and the Insurance Company. When there is statutory liability in
respect of the victim, when victim was driver and he was on
driver's seat for the owner, there is statutory liability to cover
such risk in view of the provision of section 147 of the Act. There
is similar statutory liability in respect of the owner of goods
under section 147 of the Act, but there is no statutory liability in
respect of gratuitous passengers. The case becomes different for
many reasons when the claimant is third party. The third party is
statutorily covered by policy in view of provision of section 147
of the Act. When the victim himself was cause of the breach of
the permit or breach of terms and conditions of policy the things
are different in view of the right of Insurance Company.
IN THE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 14 OF 2013
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
V
Meena Balkrushna Khandagale,
CORAM : T.V. NALAWADE, J.
Dated : 09/03/2016
Citation:2016(5) ALLMR 48
Print Page
which is covered by section 66 (1) of the Act. When the court
considers such defence it is expected to consider the facts of the
case in hand. The case in which the victim was 'third party'
needs to be dealt with from different angle and different
approach is required to be taken in the case, than the case in
which defence is of such breach and the victim was present on
the offending vehicle, he was not third party. It is true that when
the claim is made by a person victim who was on offending
vehicle and he wants to get compensation from Insurance
Company also, the initial burden is on him to show that he was
authorised to board the vehicle and travel in the vehicle. He can
show that he was either the owner of goods which he was
carrying in the vehicle or he was employee of the owner and he
was covered under the contract of insurance between the owner
and the Insurance Company. When there is statutory liability in
respect of the victim, when victim was driver and he was on
driver's seat for the owner, there is statutory liability to cover
such risk in view of the provision of section 147 of the Act. There
is similar statutory liability in respect of the owner of goods
under section 147 of the Act, but there is no statutory liability in
respect of gratuitous passengers. The case becomes different for
many reasons when the claimant is third party. The third party is
statutorily covered by policy in view of provision of section 147
of the Act. When the victim himself was cause of the breach of
the permit or breach of terms and conditions of policy the things
are different in view of the right of Insurance Company.
IN THE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 14 OF 2013
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
V
Meena Balkrushna Khandagale,
CORAM : T.V. NALAWADE, J.
Dated : 09/03/2016
Citation:2016(5) ALLMR 48
