NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. GADE MANGAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 25-08-1998 one Gade Buchi Reddy was travelling in the Tractor-trailer bearing no. AP 5402 and 5403 with a load of cement for the construction of house and cattle shed in his agricultural land. Due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor-trailer the tractor turned turtle and fell into agricultural fields at Gudaguntlapalem village, resulting in the death of Buchi Reddy on the spot. Therefore, wife, daughter and father of deceased (hereafter called, claimants) instituted O. P. No. 789 of 1998 on the file of the Court of the Motor accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal district Judge, Nalgonda, claiming an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- towards compensation for the death of deceased. Learned Tribunal by order dated 23-06-2001 awarded a sum of rs. 1,39,404/- to the claimants, aggrieved by which, insurer filed the present appeal.

(2.) PLACING reliance on the decision of supreme Court in New India Assurance company Limited v. Asha Rani 2003 (1) ALT 35 (SC) = 2003 (1) An. W. R. 162 (SC) = (2003) 2 SCC 223 = AIR 2003 SC 607 = 2002 AIR SCW 5259 learned Counsel for appellant contends that a passenger travelling in tractor-trailer is not entitled to claim compensation based on the Insurance policy, as insurance policy for vehicle used for agriculture purpose does not cover gratuitous passengers. Learned Counsel for claimants, however, submits that as the deceased was traveling along with load of cement bags for the construction of house, he is owner of the goods and policy cannot exempt his death. The submissions cannot be accepted because as per Ex. B-1-policy, tractor is only for the use of agricultural purpose and the same cannot be used for carrying the goods. Therefore, there is a clear breach of condition of policy and the same is not required to cover a person traveling in a tractor-trailer.

(3.) A three Judge Bench of Supreme Court in Asha Rani (supra) while overruling the earlier decision in New India Assurance company Limited v. Satpal Singh (2000) 1 scc 237 = AIR 2000 SC 235 = 1999 AIR scw 4337 = 2000 ACJ 1, held as follows. . . . It is no doubt true that sometimes the legislature amends the law by way of amplification and clarification of an inherent position which is there in the statute, but a plain meaning being given to the words used in the statute, as it stood prior to its amendment of 1994, and as it stands subsequent to its amendment in 1994 and bearing in mind the objects and reasons engrafted in the amended provisions referred to earlier, it is difficult for us to construe that the expression 'including owner of the goods or his authorized representative carried in the vehicle which was added to the pre-existed expression 'injury to any person' is either clarificatory or amplification of the pre-existing statute. On the other hand it clearly demonstrates that the legislature wanted to bring within the sweep of Section 147 and making it compulsory for the insurer to insure even in case of a goods vehicle, the owner of the goods or his authorized representative being carried in a goods vehicle when that vehicle met with an accident and the owner of the goods or his representative either dies or suffers bodily injury. The judgment of this Court in Satpal's case, therefore must be held to have not been correctly decided and the impugned judgment of the Tribunal as well as that of the High court accordingly are set aside and these appeals are allowed. It is held that the insurer will not be liable for paying compensation to the owner of goods or his authorized representative on being carried in a goods vehicle when that vehicle meets with an accident and the owner of goods or his representative dies or suffers any bodily injury.