NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD Vs. HAKIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CLUSTER of these appeals raises meaningful question - Whether the insurer is liable to pay compensation to the dependents of the passengers who were travelling in a goods vehicle (without any authority of owner of the goods) that met with an accident, on account of which some passengers died and others suffered bodily injury.

(2.) THIS question arises in the circumstances set out below:- On May 19, 1997 about 50-60 persons along with three `tazias' were proceeding from Dug to Vinayka Bandh in a truck No. RJ 20g 0978. Around 7. 15 PM upper Canopy of TAZIA touched electric wire and truck caught fire as a result of which several persons died and many others sustained injuries. As many as 32 claim petitions were filed in the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Jhalawar (for short `tribunal' ). Learned Tribunal passed the award in favour of claimants on September 13, 2005 holding that since driver carried passengers in the truck without the knowledge of the truck owner, it cannot be said that terms and condition of the policy had been violated willfully. The learned Tribunal held appellant Insurance Company liable to pay compensation to the dependents of the deceased and the injured.

(3.) THE Apex Court had occasion to consider the Motor Vehicle (Amendment) Act, 1994 in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Asha Rani (2003) 2 SCC 223 = (RLW 2003 (2) SC 213) and it was indicated in para 9 thus:- " In Satpal case the Court assumed that the provisions of Section 95 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 are identical with Section 147 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as it stood prior to its amendment. But a careful scrutiny of the provisions would make it clear that prior to the amendment of 1994 it was not necessary for the insurer to insure against the owner of the goods or his authorised representative being carried in a goods vehicle. On an erroneous impression this Court came to the conclusion that the insurer would be liable to pay compensation in respect of the death or bodily injury caused to either the owner of the goods or his authorised representative when being carried in a goods vehicle the accident occurred. If the Motor Vehicles Amendment Act of 1994 is examined particularly Section 46, by which the expression "injury to any person" in the original Act stood substituted by the expression "injury to any person including owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle. " the conclusion is irresistible that prior to the aforesaid Amendment Act of 1994, even if the widest interpretation is given to the expression "to any person" it will not cover either the owner of the goods or his authorised representative being carried in the vehicle. THE objects and reasons of clause 46 also state that it seeks to amend Section 147 to include owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle for the purpose of liability under the insurance policy. 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 object 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 authorised representative carried in the vehicle" which was added to the preexisting expression "injury to any person" is either clarificatory or amplification of the preexisting 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 authorised 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 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 the goods or his authorised representative on being carried in a goods vehicle when that vehicle meets with an accident and the owner of the goods or has representative dies of suffers any bodily injury. "