UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. VELAYUDHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The United India Insurance Company, the 2nd respondent in O. P. (MV) 2277/2000 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, thirssur, is the appellant. The accident occurred on 23-1-2000, involving a goods autorikshaw, bearing registration no. KL- 8/d 7044, in which the claimant, the first respondent herein, was travelling, accompanying the goods, firewoods, as the owner of the firewood, and he sustained injuries. The Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 35,480 and directed to realise the amount from the insurance company, the appellant. The same is under challenge.

(2.) The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant, insurance company, is that there is no provision in Ext. B-l policy of insurance for carrying any passenger in the goods autorikshaw. Thus, the claimant was a gratuitous passenger. Therefore, as the goods autorikshaw is not covered under the policy for carrying any gratuitous passenger, the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle. Hence, the claimant is not entitled for any compensation amount from the insurer. It is, therefore contended that the Tribunal went wrong in directing the insurer to honour the award. The learned Counsel, to emphasise this point, relied on New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani, III (2002) ACC 753 (SC) =vii (2002) SLT 91 = 2003 (1) KLT 165. National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Baljit Kaur, 2. I (2004) ACC 259 (SC) =1 (2004) SLT 269 = 2004 (1) 938 (SC). and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Bommithi Subbhayamma, 3. III (2005) ACC 423 (SC) = v (2005) SLT 348. In Asha Rani's case cited above, the Apex Court was dealing with Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles act, 1939, hereinafter referred to as 'the old act', and Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles act, 1988, hereinafter to be referred to as 'the act', as it stood before the amendment of 1994, as well as after the amendment. The court held that the expression 'to any person' in Section 147 of the Act will not cover either the owner of the goods or his authorised representative, being carried in the vehicle. However, after the amendment of section 147 in the year 1994, it is made compulsory for the insurer to insure, even in case of goods vehicle, the owner of the goods or hisauthorised representative being carried in the vehicle, when that vehicle met with an accident and the owner of the goods or his authorised representative either dies or suffers bodily injuries. The Court further held that any person appearing in section 147 of the Act must be attributed having regard to the context in which they have been used i. e. , a third party. Therefore, the Court was of the opinion that the provision thereof did not enjoin any statutory liability on the owner of the vehicle to get his vehicle insured for any passenger in a goods vehicle and the insurer would not be liable therefore.

(3.) In National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Baljit kaur, (2 supra) reiterating Asha Rani case. It was further held at Paragraph 20 as follows: