PARATAP SINGH Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I propose to decide four connected appeals i. e. FAO Nos. 1542 to 1545 of 1994 as, but for in appeal bearing No. 1542, questions of law and fact involved are the same. Learned counsel for the parties also suggest this course thought over by the Court. It may be mentioned that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal also decided all these claims by a common judgment. Brief facts for determining the controversy, which is in a very narrow compass, need immediate notice.

(2.) ON June 11, 1991 on Piare Lal boarded truck No. HR16/1927 at the behest of Partap Singh appellant, who was arrayed in the claim petition as respondent No. 1 for doing casual labour at Bhiwani. The said truck was being driven by Partap Singh and when it reached near the Giri Gas Agency Godown, near Bhiwani City at about 1. 30 PM, Partap Singh could not control it and rammed into another truck parked on the left side of the road bearing No. RNG-3053. The case of the claimants was that appellant was driving the truck No. HR16/1927 rashly and negligently and it is as a result of his carelessness that the accident occurred. Piare Lal sustained injuries along with other occupants of the truck. All the injured were taken to the hospital but one Amar Singh succumbed to his injuries. In all the claim applications, i. e. one on behalf of the dependents of Amar Singh and others by two injured, namely, Ram Kumar and Piare Lal, it was consistently stated that they had boarded the truck at the behest of the appellant to do causal work of loading and unloading and they were employed, even though temporarily, under an oral contract. They were to load and unload on payment of their daily wages. This accident gave rise to four petitions, one filed by dependents of Amar Singh and the two by injured, Ram Kumar and Piare Lal. Fourth petition was filed by the appellant herein as his vehicle had been extensively damaged in the accident. The claimants in all the petitions filed by them before the Tribunal asked for various amounts of compensation. The National Insurance Company, which was arrayed as party-respondent, in all the claim petitions, the truck driven by the appellant having been insured by it, contested the claim on various grounds inclusive of that the deceased and the insured were gratituous passengers and, therefore, Insurance Company was not liable to pay any compensation either because of death of Amar Singh or on account of the injuries sustained by Ram Kumar and Piare Lal. Besides others, the Tribunal recorded following issue No. 2 :

(3.) MR . Sheron, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contends that the findings of the Tribunal while holding the appellant liable to pay the compensation to the claimants and which findings have been reproduced above, cannot possibly sustain. Before, however, he could take the Court through the evidence led in the matter so as to show that the claimants, as a matter of fact, had boarded the truck driven by the appellant, having been engaged as labourers for loading and unloading, even though, insofar as he is concerned, the appellant has stated that Amar Singh was a cleaner of the truck, he has referred to the latest case law on the point with reference to Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. With the help of Section 147 of the 1988 Act, the counsel had endeavoured, any in my view successfully, to project that the law that earlier held the field, in pursuance of the then provisions dealing with the situation i. e. Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 no more holds the field and there being vital change in the provisions of Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 Act and Section 147 of the 1988 Act, it is now settled that Insurance Co. cannot disclaim its liability in respect of particular class of persons or particular kind of vehicles and when a victim is labourer travelling in a truck, he is covered Under Section 147 and Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation. This Court does not wish to go into the details of contention raised by learned counsel as the matter is by now well settled and is no more res-integra. In a recent decision rendered by a Division Bench of Jammu and Kashmir High Court, with which this Court is in respectful agreement, in New India Assurance Company v. Smt. Shakuntala Devi and Ors. , A. I. R. 1997 J and K 40, it was held that "section 147 is quite comprehensive in scope and meaning. It has to be given wider, effective and practical meaning so that the object of the legislature which was faced with divergent views of various Courts of the country giving different interpretation to the provisions of Section 95 (old) causing immense harm to many categories of persons by disentitling them from claiming compensation either from the insurer or the insured or both, in the facts and circumstances of the case. New provisions, therefore, covers such kind of cases as well. " The facts of the aforesaid case would show on March 2, 1993 a truck bearing registration No. JK-02b-7093 turned turtle, with the result that labourer Raj Pal, travelling in the truck, died on the spot leaving behind his widow and three minor children. Claim petition filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal met with success. Aggrieved, New India Insurance Company filed an appeal which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. Still aggrieved, the Insurance Company filed a Letters Patent Appeal. The learned Judges, while deciding the matter, compared the provisions contained in Sections 147 (of the 1988 Act) and 95 (of the 1939 Act ). Before that, the Division Bench, on the basis of evidence and material available or records, came to the conclusion that the deceased was accompanying the goods for their safe custody on behalf of the owner, who had hired the vehicle. The Insurance Company had not been able to prove satisfactorily that the deceased was labourer of the insured, by production of record pointing out his employment and payments to the deceased from time to time. The insured had not stated anywhere that decceased Raj Pal was his employee. It was concluded that the deceased used to be engaged by the hireres of the truck for safe consignment of their goods. The Court examined the question in two facets, namely, the liability of the appellant in the case the deceased happened to be labourer of the insured or labourer of the hirer of the vehicle, and after discussing divergent views of various High Courts on the issue, came to the conclusion that "the contention of the appellant that the policy of insurance in respect of the vehicle in question did not cover the liability of the labourer for want of payment of additional premium within the meaning of Section 147 of Motor Vehicles Act, has hardly any substance in view of the object and intendment of amended Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has hardly any substance in view of the object and intendment of amended Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 statutorily covering all kinds of persons travelling by the vehicle without payment of additional premium. A bare reading of Section 147 demonstrates plainly that it is quite comprehensive in scope and meaning. It has to be given wider, effective and practical meaning so that the object of the legislature which was faced with divergent views of various Courts of the country giving different interpretation to the provisions of Section 95 (old) causing immense harm to many categories of persons by disentitling them from claiming compensation either from the insurer or the insured or both, in the facts and circumstances of the case. New provisions, therefore, covers such kinds of cases as well. The decisions referred to by the learned counsel for the appellant, turn on their own facts and have hardly any application under the amended Section 147 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 which applies to the present case since the accident took place after this Act had come into force. " It was further held that "the learned Single Judge has rightly said that the legislature clearly intended that every policy of insurance statutorily required to cover the risk of liability in respect of classes of persons relating to all types of vehicles without exception and with no defence to the insurance company disclaiming the liability with respect to particular class or persons or particular kind of vehicles. Therefore, the deceased Raj Pal, being a labourer travelling in the truck, engaged by either of the parties, is covered Under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the liability to pay the compensation has to fall on the appellant. "