ANU BHANVARA ETC. vs. IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

1                            NON­REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL Nos.6231­6232 OF 2019   [   ARISING    OUT OF S.L.P. [C] Nos.19090­19092 OF 2019]     [@  DIARY NO. 8720 OF 2018] ANU BHANVARA ETC.   …..APPELLANTS VERSUS IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE  COMPANY LIMITED & ORS.    …RESPONDENTS J U D G M E N T Vineet Saran, J. Leave granted. These appeals are against the judgment and order dated 2. 05.04.2016 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh relating to the claims for compensation in respect of injuries sustained by two gratuitous passengers in a jeep (goods vehicle).  The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (for short “Tribunal”) had dismissed the claim petitions on the ground that the negligence Signature Not Verified of   the   driver   was   not   proved.     However,   the   High   Court,   after Digitally signed by INDU MARWAH Date: 2019.08.10 12:34:23 IST Reason: holding that the accident was as a result of composite negligence of 2 the driver of the jeep and the other offending vehicle, held that the owner   and   driver   of   the   jeep   would   be   liable   for   payment   of compensation and exonerated the insurer of the jeep, on the ground that the vehicle was insured as a goods vehicle and the claimants, who   had   sustained   injuries,   were   gratuitous   passengers   in   the goods   vehicle   (Jeep)   and   would   thus   not   be   covered   under   the insurance policy as they were not travelling as owner of the goods. The insurance of the jeep, as a goods vehicle, has been found to be valid.   3. In F.A.O. No. 5460 of 2012 before the High Court, the case was of one Anu Bhanvara, aged about fifteen years at the time of the accident, who, because of injuries sustained, had to have amputation   of   wrist   resulting   in   55%   disability.     The   Tribunal assessed   total   compensation   of   Rs.5,26,000/­,   which   was   after assessing disability compensation of 55% at Rs.50,000/­, loss of prospect of marriage at Rs.1,00,000/­ and cost of artificial limb at Rs.3,76,000/­.     The   High   Court   enhanced   the   compensation   to Rs.6,41,750/­, after awarding additional compensation for medical expenses, pain and suffering, income loss etc. in addition to what was assessed by the Tribunal.  3 4. In the other F.A.O. No. 5461 of 2012 before the High Court, the case was of one Rohit Kumar, aged about eighteen years at the time of accident, who, because of the injuries sustained in the   accident,   had   to   have   his   arm   amputated   below   the   elbow resulting   in   70%   disability.     The   Tribunal   assessed   total compensation   of   Rs.5,78,000/­,   which   was   after   assessing   the disability compensation of 70% at Rs.50,000/­, income assessed at Rs.54,000/­ and cost of artificial limb at Rs.3,90,000/­.  The High Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.7,36,000/­, after awarding additional compensation for medical expenses, pain and suffering, income loss etc. in addition to what was assessed by the Tribunal. 5. Challenging the said judgments of the High Court, these appeals   have   been   filed   by   the   claimants   for   enhancement   of compensation and also to direct payment of compensation by the insurer.   6 . We have heard Mr. S. L. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellants and Ms. Shanta Devi Raman, learned counsel for the respondent no.1­insurer and have perused the material on record.  The questions now to be considered by this Court are 7. two­fold; firstly, whether the amount of compensation awarded was adequate   or   not;   and   secondly,   whether   the   payment   of 4 compensation is to be made jointly by the owner and driver of the vehicle, or by the insurer which could thereafter be recovered by the insurer from the owner and driver.   Having regard to the respective age of the two claimants 8. and keeping in view that compensation has been awarded on all requisite heads by the High Court, we are of the opinion that no interference is called with regard to the quantum of compensation awarded to the two claimants.   The next question is as to which of the respondents, that 9. is the owner and driver, or the insurer of the vehicle, would be liable for payment of such compensation.  As regard the liability for payment of compensation, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that since the vehicle was admittedly insured with the respondent no.1­insurance company, the principle of pay and recover would be invoked even in case of a gratuitous passenger in a goods vehicle. The insurance company should thus be made liable for the payment of compensation to the appellants and in turn they would have the right to realise/recover the same from   the   owner   and   driver   of   the   vehicle.     In   support   of   his submission, learned counsel for the appellants has relied on the following   decisions   of   this   Court,   namely,   Manuara   Khatoon   v. 5 Rajesh Kumar Singh (2017) 4 SCC 796, Puttappa v. Rama Naik (Civil nd   Appeal No.4397 of 2016, disposed of on 2 April, 2018); Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Saju P. Paul (2013) 2 SCC 41; New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Vimal Devi (Civil Appeal Nos.1578­1579 th of 2004, disposed of on 5   October, 2010); National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Challs Upendra Rao (2004) 8 SCC 517; New India Assurance Co.   Ltd.   v.   C.   M.   Jaya   (2002)   2   SCC   278;   Amrit   Lal   Sood   v. Kaushalya Devi Thapar (1998) 3 SCC 744.  10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent­insurance company has contended that since the claimants were gratuitous passengers   in   a   goods   vehicle,   in   which   case   the   liability   for payment   of   compensation   for   death   or   body   injury   to   the passengers of such goods vehicle would not be covered,  hence the principle of pay and recover would not apply.   It has thus been contended that the order of the High Court is perfectly justified in law and calls for no interference by this Court.  In support of her submission,   learned   counsel   has   relied   on   following   decisions, namely,   New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani (2003) 2 SCC 223; National Insurance  Co. Ltd. v. Baljit  Kaur (2004) 2 SCC 1; National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kaushalya Devi (2008) 8 SCC 246; 6 National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rattani (2009) 2 SCC 75; National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Prema Devi (2008) 5 SCC 403; Bharat AXA General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Adani MANU/TN/6503/2018;   Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Lal Singh (2015) SCC Online Del 7508. 11. We   have   heard   learned   counsel   for   the   parties   and perused the record as well as the various decisions cited by learned counsel for the parties.  The insurance of the vehicle, though as a goods vehicle, is not disputed by the parties.  The claimants in the present   case   are   young   children   who   have   suffered   permanent disability   on   account   of   the   injuries   sustained   in   the   accident. Thus, keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the considered view that the principle of “pay and recover” should be directed to be invoked in the present case. . Accordingly,   these   appeals   are   disposed   of   with   the 12 direction that the respondent no.1 – insurance company shall be liable to pay the awarded compensation to the claimants in both the appeals.  However,  respondent   no.1   –   insurance   company   shall have the right to realize the said amount of compensation from the 7 respondents   no.   2   and   3   (driver   and   owner   of   the   vehicle)   in accordance with law. 13 . There shall be no order as to costs. ………………………..J.    [R. F. Nariman] ………………….…….J.  [Vineet Saran] New Delhi; August 9, 2019.