NIRANJAN SINGH Vs. OM SUTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under clause X of the Letters Patent has been filed against judgment dated 17.12.1998 passed by the learned single Judge in F.A.O. No. 269 of 1994, whereby order passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal was upheld, according to which it was the appellant owner of the vehicle involved in the accident, who was to pay compensation on account of death of two persons as the victims were held to be non-fare paying passengers and were also unauthorised to travel as per terms of the insurance policy.

(2.) At the time when matter came up for hearing before a Motion Bench of this court on 9.1.2000, the learned counsel for the appellant had cited a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Satpal Singh, 2000 ACJ 1 (SC), to contend that the new Motor Vehicles Act came into force on 14.10.1988 (Sic. 1.7.1989) and the accident had taken place on 25.9.1989 and in the situation as mentioned above appellant owner was not liable to pay compensation even with regard to death of the passengers who were travelling in the vehicle that met with an accident. The matter was admitted only on the basis of judgment in Satpal Singh's case (supra).

(3.) Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate, the learned counsel for the appellant very fairly states that the judgment in Satpal Singh's case, 2000 ACJ 1 (SC), has since been overruled by a larger Bench of the Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani, 2003 ACJ 1 (SC). He, however, contends that the appellant was paying Rs. 240 in addition to the premium, by virtue of which, non-fare (non-paying) passengers could also travel in the vehicle and, therefore, premium paid by appellant owner had covered death or bodily injuries even with regard to the person who was travelling in the vehicle but was non-fare paying passenger. We have perused original insurance policy shown by learned counsel for the appellant. In our view, Rs. 240 were paid by the appellant on account of 'Liability to public risk'. Immediately underneath the column to liability to public risk, the mentioning of the words 'Add: for L.L. to authorised non-fare paying passengers as per END IMT 14 (b) Limit any one passenger Rs. ... Limit any one accident Rs. ..." the net amount payable on account of heads as mentioned above is blank, what really transpires is that no additional premium was paid by appellant for so-called authorised non-fare paying passengers and as mentioned above, Rs. 240 were towards liability to public risk.