BHAV SING Vs. SAVIRANT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE relevant facts leading to this reference are that Hariram was a labourer working for the owner of the tractor-trolley bearing registration No. MP 15-T 1184 and while travelling in the tractor-trolley met with an accident and died. His legal heirs filed M. A. C. T. Case no. 29 of 1998 and by the award dated 6. 3. 1999, the First Additional Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Sagar awarded a sum of Rs. 2,84,332 with interest as stated therein against the owner of the vehicle but absolved the insurer of the tractor-trolley, new India Assurance Co. Ltd. Aggrieved by the award of the Tribunal, the appellant who is the owner of tractor-trolley has filed the present appeal.

(2.) WHEN the appeal was heard by the division Bench, a Full Bench decision of this court in Jugal Kishore v. Ramlesh devi, 2004 ACJ 297 (MP), was cited by learned counsel for the appellant before the Division Bench to contend that a policy of insurance satisfying the requirements of section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') would cover liability of the insurer to any passenger of the tractor-trolley who may be a 'third party' within the meaning of the expression as used in section 145 (g) of the Act. Learned counsel for the appellant also cited before the Division Bench a decision of a Division bench of this court in National Insurance co. Ltd. v. Sarvanlal, 2005 ACJ 1401 (MP), in which the Division Bench after citing paras 17 and 18 of the judgment of the Full Bench of this court in Jugal kishore's case (supra) held that the insurer is liable to indemnify for the death of the deceased as a passenger was a third party within the meaning of section 145 (g) of the Act. The Division Bench, in the present appeal, passed an order dated 16. 2. 2007 saying that the law laid down in case of jugal Kishore (supra) specially in paras 17 and 18 thereof and the law laid down in the case of Sarvanlal (supra), which states that the expression 'third party' would cover a passenger, requires re-consideration by an appropriate larger Bench.

(3.) WE have heard Mr. B. K. Rawat, the learned counsel for appellant, Ms. Nirmala raikwar, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 4, Mr. S. K. Rao, the learned senior counsel for the respondent No. 6 and mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate as amicus curiae.