Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 981-990 of 2002
Appeal (civil) 1141-1158 of 2002
PETITIONER:
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
RESPONDENT:
Devireddy Konda Reddy & Ors. etc.etc.
Jogi Subbamma and Ors. etc.etc.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 24/01/2003
BENCH:
SHIVARAJ V. PATIL & ARIJIT PASAYAT.
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
ARIJIT PASAYAT,J.
These appeals are directed against the common judgment
rendered by a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High
Court. By the said judgment, it upheld view of learned
Single Judge that compensation is payable by the insurer
even if the deceased persons in respect of whom claims are
made were gratuitous passengers. Both the learned Single
Judge and the Division Bench relied on the decision of this
Court in New India Assurance Company vs. Satpal Singh and
Ors. (2000 (1) SCC 237) for coming to this conclusion.
Since the point involved is one of law, the factual
position which is almost undisputed needs to be noted in
brief. Certain persons were traveling in goods vehicles
which were subject-matter of insurance with the appellant-
Oriental Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter referred to
as "the Insurer’). The vehicles met with accidents
resulting in death of several persons who were either
unauthorized or gratuitous passengers in the said vehicles.
Their legal representatives lodged claims under Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ’the Act’).
Though the accidents took place on different dates, the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Anantapur, (hereinafter
referred to as ’the Tribunal’) took up the cases together as
according to it the points of dispute were identical. It
held that the deceased persons accompanied the goods which
were transported by the goods carriages in question.
Accordingly, it held that the insurer was liable to
indemnify the award passed. In appeals filed by the
insurer, learned Single Judge concurred with view of the
Tribunal relying on Satpal Singh’s case (supra). As noted
above, the Division Bench dismissed the appeals against
learned Single Judge’s judgments. The said common judgment
as noted above is under challenge in these appeals.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5
Learned counsel for the insurer-appellant submitted
that Section 149 (2) of the Act is etymologically different
from proviso (ii) to Section 96 (2)(b) of the Motor Vehicles
Act 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the ’old Act’) and,
therefore, the ratio in Satpal Singh’s case (supra) has no
application. In response, learned counsel appearing for the
claimants submitted that in Satpal Singh’s case (supra) such
a stand has been negatived and it has been held that insurer
is liable to pay compensation to gratuitous passengers.
This Court had occasion to deal with cases of
passengers traveling in goods vehicles which met accident
resulting in death of such person or bodily injury. Such
cases belong to three categories i.e. (1) those covered by
the old Act;(2) those covered by the Act; and (3) those
covered by amendment of the Act in 1994 by the Motor
Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as
the ’Amendment Act’).
The present appeals belong to the second category.
In Satpal Singh’s case (supra) this Court proceeded on
the footing that provision of Section 95(1) of the old Act
are in pari materia with Section 147(1) of the Act, as it
stood prior to the amendment in 1994.
On a closer reading of the expressions "goods
vehicle", "public service vehicle", "stage carrier" and
"transport vehicle" occurring in Sections 2(8), 2(25),
2(29) and 2(33) of the old Act with the corresponding
provisions i.e. Section 2(14), 2(35), 2(40) and 2(47) of the
Act, it is clear that there are conceptual differences. The
provisions read as follows:
Old Act:
"2(8) "goods vehicle" means any motor
vehicle constructed or adapted for use for
the carriage of goods, or any motor vehicle
not so constructed or adapted when used for
the carriage of goods solely or in addition
to passengers;"
"2(25) "public service vehicle" means any
motor vehicle used or adapted to be used for
the carriage of passengers for hire or
reward, and includes a motorcab, contract
carriage, and stage carriage;"
"2(29) "stage carriage" means a motor
vehicle carrying or adapted to carry more
than six persons excluding the driver which
carries passengers for hire or reward at
separate fares paid by or for individual
passengers, either for the whole journey or
for stages of the journey;"
"2(33) "transport vehicle" means a public
service vehicle or a goods vehicle;"
New Act:
"2(14) "goods carriage" any motor vehicle
constructed or adapted for use solely for the
carriage of goods, or any motor vehicle not
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5
so constructed or adapted when used for the
carriage of goods;"
"2(35) "public service vehicle" means any
motor vehicle used or adapted to be used for
the carriage of passengers for hire or
reward, and includes a maxicab, a motorcab,
contract, and stage carriage;"
"2(40) "stage carriage" means a motor
vehicle constructed or adapted to carry more
than six passengers excluding the driver for
hire or reward at separate fares paid by or
for individual passengers, either for the
whole journey or for stages of the journey;"
"2(47) "transport vehicle" means a public
service vehicle, a goods carriage, an
educational institution bus or a private
service vehicle;"
(Underlined for emphasis)
"Liability" as defined in Section 145(c) of the Act
reads as follows:
"’Liability’ wherever used in relation to
the death of or bodily injury to any person,
includes liability in respect thereof under
Section 140;"
Third party risks in the background of vehicles which
are subject-matter of insurance are dealt with in Chapter
VIII of the old Act and Chapter XI of the Act. Proviso to
Section 147 needs to be juxtaposed with Section 95 of the
old Act. Proviso to Section 147 of the Act reads as
follows:
"Provided that a policy shall not be
required-
(i) to cover liability in respect of the
death, arising out of and in the course of
his employment, of the employee of a person
insured by the policy or in respect of bodily
injury sustained by such an employee arising
out of and in the course of his employment
other than a liability arising under the
Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923)
in respect of the death of, or bodily injury
to, any such employee
(a) engaged in driving the vehicle, or
(b) if it is a public service vehicle
engaged as conductor of the vehicle
or in examining tickets on the
vehicles, or
(c) if it is a goods carriage, being
carried in the vehicle, or
(ii) to cover any contractual liability."
It is of significance that proviso appended to Section 95
of the old Act contained clause(ii) which does not find
place in the new Act. The same reads as follows:-
"except where the vehicle is a vehicle in
which passengers are carried for hire or
reward or by reason of or in pursuance of a
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5
contract of employment, to cover liability in
respect of the death of or bodily injury to
persons being carried in or upon or entering
or mounting or alighting from the vehicle at
the time of the occurrence of the event out
of which a claim arises."
The difference in the language of "goods vehicle" as
appearing in the old Act and "goods carriage" in the Act
is of significance. A bare reading of the provisions makes
it clear that the legislative intent was to prohibit goods
vehicle from carrying any passenger. This is clear from the
expression "in addition to passengers" as contained in
definition of "goods vehicle" in the old Act. The
position becomes further clear because the expression used
is "goods carriage" is solely for the carriage of goods".
Carrying of passengers in a goods carriage is not
contemplated in the Act. There is no provision similar to
clause (ii) of the proviso appended to Section 95 of the old
Act prescribing requirement of insurance policy. Even
Section 147 of the Act mandates compulsory coverage against
death of or bodily injury to any passenger of "public
service vehicle". The proviso makes it further clear that
compulsory coverage in respect of drivers and conductors of
public service vehicle and employees carried in goods
vehicle would be limited to liability under the Workmen’s
Compensation Act, 1923 (in short ’WC Act’). There is no
reference to any passenger in "goods carriage’.
The inevitable conclusion, therefore, is that
provisions of the Act do not enjoin any statutory liability
on the owner of a vehicle to get his vehicle insured for any
passenger traveling in a goods carriage and the insurer
would have no liability therefor.
Our view gets support from a recent decision of a
three-judge Bench of this Court in New India Assurance
Company Limited vs. Asha Rani & Ors. [2002 (8) Supreme 594]
in which it has been held that Satpal Singh’s case (supra)
was not correctly decided. That being the position the
Tribunal and the High Court were not justified in holding
that the insurer had the liability to satisfy the award.
The appeals are accordingly allowed by setting aside
judgments of Tribunal and High Court but in the peculiar
circumstances without any order as to costs.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5
1