Javed Nisar v. The Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd. And ANR.

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION [CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR] *** PRESENT: THE HON'BLE JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK FMAT/2/2020 JAVED NISAR ... APPELLANT VS.

THE MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. AND ANOTHER ...

RESPONDENTS For the appellant :

Mr. C. Mano For the respondents :

Mr. Arul Prasanth Ms. Anita Hegde Heard on :

February 20, 2026 Delivered on :

February 20, 2026 DEBANGSU BASAK, J.

1.

Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is directed against the order dated October 14, 2019 passed in MACT No. 33 of 2008 by the Sole Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Port Blair.

2.

Appeal is pending since 2020. It was disposed of on December, 09, 201. On the plea that the appellant was not heard, the order dated December 09, 2021 was recalled by the co-ordinate Bench. Since then the appellant did not get the appeal disposed of. Since February 16, 2026, the appellant sought and obtained adjournments on one plea or the other.

3.

Keeping the appeal pending would not be in the interest of justice. In fact the appellant is forum shopping by keeping the appeal pending, which should not be indulged into.

4.

Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that, the appellant was a passenger of the vehicle which met with an accident. He submits that, Learned Tribunal, erred in dismissing the claim of the appellant as against the respondent. He submits that, the fact that the appellant was traveling in the vehicle which met with the accident and the fact that, the appellant suffered injuries were established. Therefore, the appellant was entitled to compensation which was wrongfully denied by the Tribunal.

5.

Learned Advocate appearing for the Insurance Company submits that, the vehicle which met with the accident was a goods vehicle. He draws the attention of the Court to the fact that, although, the owner of the vehicle was made as a party respondent in the claim petition, no steps were taken by the appellant as against the owner of the vehicle. Tribunal itself, deleted the owner of the vehicle as a party respondent from the proceeding. He submits that, so far as the appellant is concerned, he is not covered by the insurance policy as, the appellant was a gratuitous passenger, in a goods vehicle which was not permitted to such passenger, when the accident occurred. Such an eventuality is not covered by the policy of insurance.

6.

The records produced before Court establish that, on January 5, 2008, the appellant along with another person boarded a Tata Truck on

January 5, 2008. Such Truck capsized after colliding with a tree. Apart from the appellant, other persons suffered injuries. Left thigh of the appellant was injured in the accident. Appellant was admitted at the local hospital and thereafter shifted to another hospital. He was discharged from the hospital on January 8, 2008 to be treated at Chennai. He was discharged from the hospital at Chennai on January 23, 2008.

7.

It appears that, the appellant underwent medical procedure at Chennai. Steel plate was implanted in the left thigh of the appellant. Appellant claimed that he incurred medical expenses to the tune of Rs. 2,85,000/- for his treatment. Claim of the appellant is that, the driver of the vehicle was negligent and therefore the accident occurred. Moreover, due to the accident, the appellant was declared medically unfit to serve as a Seaman. Appellant is not in a position to sit or work properly due to such accident. Appellant claimed compensation of Rs. 2,85,000/- along with interest.

8.

Records produced before Court establish that, although the owner of the vehicle was initially impleaded as a party respondent in the claim petition, nonetheless, due to the appellant not taking any steps against the owner of the vehicle, the name of the owner of the vehicle was deleted by the order dated August 10, 2012. 9.

Deletion of the owner of the vehicle as a party respondent of the proceeding by the order dated August 10, 2012 remains unchallenged till date. Records establish that the vehicle which met with the accident

was a goods vehicle. It was insured to be so. It was not supposed to carry any gratuitous passenger. In any event, the appellant was a gratuitous passenger on board the vehicle which met with the accident. 10.

Insurance Policy which covered the vehicle, did not cover a person, who boards a goods vehicle, gratuitously. It is trite law that, Section 147 of the Motors Vehicle Act cannot be read or construed to mean that, an insurer is liable in respect of the passengers, especially gratuitous passengers, who were neither contemplated at the time of the contract of insurance was entered into, nor was any premium paid to the extent of benefit of insurance to such category of people, be covered by the contract of insurance.

11.

An insurance company, insuring goods vehicle, is not called upon to indemnify a claim of the injury caused to a passenger boarding such goods vehicle, gratuitously.

12.

Learned Tribunal, considered such aspect of the matter and dismissed the claim of the appellant as against to the insurance company, rightly.

13.

I find no ground to interfere with the impugned order of the Learned Tribunal.

14.

FMAT/2/2020 is dismissed without any order as to costs. ( DEBANGSU BASAK, J. )