NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. ANGORI BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the insurance company challenging the award passed by Claims Tribunal in favour of respondent No. 1. Contention of appellant insurance company is that insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation for the death caused to a passenger in a goods carriage. Claimants have filed cross-objection for enhancement of compensation.

(2.) Admitted facts of the case are that the deceased Gariba was travelling in the goods carriage bearing No. MPW 9754, which was being driven by Raju, respondent No. 2 and owned by one Ajmer Singh, respondent No. 3. On account of overturning of the truck Gariba died on the spot. Thereafter claim has been filed. Contention of the counsel for the appellant insurance company is that insurance company is not liable to pay compensation in the case of goods carriage. Reliance has been placed by counsel for appellant in the judgment of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani, 2003 ACJ 1 (SC) and judgment of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Devireddy Konda Reddy, 2003 ACJ 468 (SC). The Apex Court while noticing the change in the definition of 'goods vehicle' occurring in section 2 (8) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and definition of 'goods carriage' in section 2 (14) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has held that the difference in the language of 'goods vehicle' as appearing in the old Act and 'goods carriage' in the new Act is of significance. A bare reading of the provisions make 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 the 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 Act mandates compulsory coverage against the death of or bodily injury to any passenger of 'public service vehicle'. The proviso makes it further clear that the compulsory coverage in respect of the conductors and drivers of the public service vehicle and the employees carried in a goods vehicle would be limited to the liability under the Workmen's Compensation Act. There is no reference to any passenger in a 'goods carriage'. Therefore, it is held that the provisions of the Act do not enjoin any statutory liability on the owner of a vehicle to get his vehicle insured for any passenger travelling in a goods carriage and the insurer would have no liability therefor. In view of the aforesaid two judgments the contention of insurance company is accepted and it is held that insurance company is not liable to pay compensation.

(3.) Counsel for owner submitted that unless policy was produced by the owner or insurance company, the insurance company cannot be absolved. The policy has not been produced by the owner and on failure to produce the policy by owner no conclusion can be drawn. Even otherwise, as held in para 10 in the judgment of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 2003 ACJ 468 (SC), it is clear that the provisions of the Act do not enjoin any statutory liability on the owner of a vehicle to get his vehicle insured for any passenger travelling in a goods carriage and the insurer would have no liability therefor. Thus, non-production of policy is not fatal in this case. In view of the legal position it was not necessary to prove and produce the policy. Therefore, we hold that insurance company is not liable to pay compensation.