ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. GOPALAN ACHARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant M/s.Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd was the 3rd respondent in O.P.(MV) No.760/94 filed by the 1st respondent here in. The petitioner filed the above claim for compensation of the injuries sustained in a motor accident. He claimed an amount of Rs.50,000.00 by way of compensation. The owner remained ex parte. On behalf of the insurance company, who is the appellant herein a written statement was filed wherein they inter alia contended that there is a valid insurance. But according to them gratuitous passengers are not covered by the policy issued and that the policy conditions have been violated. Therefore they disclaimed their liability. The Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal found that there was negligence on the part of the driver. The quantum of compensation was then fixed after taking into consideration all the relevant materials on record and found that the claimant will be entitled for a compensation of Rs.44,500.00. However, the contention of the Insurance Company disclaiming their liability to pay compensation to the gratuitous passenger was rejected following the decision of the Apex Court in Satpal Singh's case. It was also observed that the policy as such was not produced.

(2.) Learned counsel Sri.George Cherian appearing on behalf of the Insurance company would contend that the decision in Satpal Singh's case has since been overruled by the apex court in the latter decision in Asha Rani's case reported in New India Assurance Co. Ltd v. Asha Rani and others (2003(2) SCC 223). In paragraph 30 of the judgment, the apex court held that the decision in New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs. Satpal Singh has not laid down the law correctly and should be overruled. Subsequently, in National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Baljit Kaur and others (2004(2) SCC 1), apex court held that policy in respect of goods vehicle, the liability of the insurer does not cover gratuitous passengers carried in such vehicle. The amendment to Section 147 (1) (b) of M.V. Act 94, does not alter this position. However, in view of the fact that the decision in law was not clear until the said decision was rendered, the Insurance company was directed to deposit the amount with liberty to file execution proceedings straight away against the owner without filing a fresh claim.

(3.) In the light of the above two decisions by the Apex court, it is only an act policy. There is no liability on the Insurer to pay compensation to a gratuitous passenger in a goods carriage vehicle or any other vehicle. In the light of the latter decision of the apex court, the award of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside.