Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 229 (HP)

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. v. SAVITRI DEVI

2005-07-08

SURJIT SINGH

body2005
JUDGMENT Surjit Singh, J.—The present appeal by New India Assurance Company, through its Divisional Manager, Shimla, is directed against the award dated 4.7.1996 of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shimla whereby the entire compensation amount of Rs. 2,57,120/- awarded to the dependents of late Sh. Netar Singh, who died in an accident, has been ordered to be paid by it (the appellant). 2. Admitted facts are that deceased Netar Singh, for whose death the compensation has been awarded was on board truck No. HPS 6371, which is a goods carrier. He was carrying some defective parts of his own vehicle for repair when the accident took place. In the accident he died. The truck, in question was insured with the appellant, i.e. New India Assurance Company. The plea taken by the appellant before the Tribunal was that the deceased was traveling by truck unauthorisedly as a gratuitous passenger and hence it (the appellant) was not liable to pay any compensation. The plea did not find favour with the learned Tribunal and consequently, the Tribunal after recording the findings that the cause of the accident was rash/negligent driving of the truck, by its driver and that Netar Singh died in that accident, awarded a sum of Rs. 2,57,120/-, as compensation with interest at the rate of 12% per annum and directed the present appellant, in the capacity of insurer, to pay the entire amount of compensation together with interest. 3. Appellants contention is that Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as it stood prior to the amendment of 1994, does not provide for the compulsory insurance, in respect of the owner of the goods, being carried in a goods vehicle, and hence it (the appellant) is not liable to pay the compensation money. The order of the Tribunal is alleged to be illegal to the extent it directs the appellant to pay the compensation together with the interest. 4. During the course of the hearing of the appeal, learned counsel, representing the appellant, cited judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the matter of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v Asha Rani and others, 2003 ACJ 1, in support of the appellants aforesaid plea. 4. During the course of the hearing of the appeal, learned counsel, representing the appellant, cited judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the matter of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v Asha Rani and others, 2003 ACJ 1, in support of the appellants aforesaid plea. The Honble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment, vide para-9, has held that Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act as it stood prior to the amendment of 1994 did not require the insurer to insure against the owner of the goods of his authorized representative, being carried in a goods vehicle. It has very categorically been held that an insurer will not be liable for paying compensation to the owner of the goods or his authorized representative being carried in a goods vehicle if the vehicle meets with an accident and the owner of the goods of his representative dies or suffers bodily injury. The judgment which is by a three Judges Bench overrules the earlier judgment by a two Judges Bench in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v Satpal Singh, 2000 ACJ 1 (SC), wherein it was held that Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, as it stood prior to the amendment of 1994, covered the risk of any person, including the owner of the goods or any other person traveling in a goods vehicle whether carrying any goods or not. 5. Faced with the aforesaid legal position, the learned Counsel representing the claimants as also the insured stated that the Insurance Company, after making the payment of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, can recover that money from the insured in view of the law laid down by another Bench (also of three Judges) of the Honble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Baljit Kaur and others, 2004 (2) SCC 1. They conceded that the risk of deceased Netar Singh could not be said to have been covered under the insurance policy, in view of the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani and others (supra) and the fact that the accident, in question, had taken place before the provisions of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, was amended by the Amending Act of 1994. 6. Ltd. v. Asha Rani and others (supra) and the fact that the accident, in question, had taken place before the provisions of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, was amended by the Amending Act of 1994. 6. As a result of the above stated position, the appeal is accepted and the finding of the learned Tribunal that the Insurance Company (the appellant) is liable to pay the compensation amount as also the order of the learned Tribunal fastening the liability on the appellant are set-aside. However, in view of the Honble Supreme Courts judgment in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Baljit Kaur and others (supra), it is ordered that the appellant, after making the payment of the compensation money to the claimants, shall be entitled to the refund of the same from the insured, i.e. the owner of the truck. Accordingly it is ordered that after the appellant pays the money to the claimants, the insured (the owner of the truck) namely Tilak Raj respondent shall pay to the appellant amount of money equivalent to the amount paid by the appellant to the claimants. The Insurance Company (the appellant) shall be entitled to recover the money by executing this order. Appeal disposed of. -