Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 408 (KAR)

Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sheela

2008-07-30

ANAND BYRAREDDY

body2008
JUDGMENT Anand Byrareddy, J.— Heard the counsel for the appellant and the respondents. 2. These appeals are considered together. The respondent No. 1 in each of these appeals were the claimants before Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for brevity). They were occupants of a private jeep which had met with an accident and as a result of the same, the said respondents having been injured, had laid a claim for compensation before the Claims Tribunal. The Tribunal having addressed their claim petitions has fastened the liability on the appellant, which was the insurer of the concerned vehicle and it is this liability which is sought to be challenged. 3. The counsel for the appellant would submit that the policy in respect of the insured vehicle was a 'A' policy issued under the India Motor Tariff, 1989 and, therefore, the liability of the insurer was clearly absolved in respect of an occupant of the insured vehicle. In that, the 'A' policy covered the risk as contemplated under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for brevity) and that it does not require the insurer to cover the risk of an occupant of a private car or jeep as in the present case. The Tribunal has overlooked the legal position and, therefore, the appeals would have to be allowed. The question is no longer res Integra as it is settled by the latest judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sudhakaran K.V. and Others, AIR 2008 SC 2729 . While considering the law as laid down in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Asha Rani and Others, AIR 2003 SC 607 , it was held that a gratuitous passenger in a goods vehicle was not covered by contract of insurance in terms of Section 147 of the Act and also while considering the decision in United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Shimla Vs. Tilak Singh and Others, AIR 2006 SC 1576 which extended the principle laid down in Asha Rani's case (supra) to all other categories of the vehicle in the following manner: (21) In our view, although the observations made in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ltd., Shimla Vs. Tilak Singh and Others, AIR 2006 SC 1576 which extended the principle laid down in Asha Rani's case (supra) to all other categories of the vehicle in the following manner: (21) In our view, although the observations made in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Asha Rani and Others, AIR 2003 SC 607 , were in connection with carrying passengers in a goods vehicle, the same would apply with equal force to gratuitous passengers in any other vehicle also. Thus, we must uphold the contention of the appellant insurance company that it owed no liability for the injuries suffered by the deceased Rajinder Singh who was a pillion rider, as the insurance policy was a statutory policy and hence it did not cover the risk of death of or bodily injury to gratuitous passenger. And this has been affirmed by the above judgment in Sudhakaran's case (supra) and, therefore, the question of law is formally settled and hence, the appeal would have to be allowed on the face of it. 4. The counsel for the respondents in the respective appeals would seek to place reliance on earlier judgments which no longer have any bearing, since the Apex Court with the above judgments has taken a clear view as to the liability towards occupants of a vehicle under the policy issued to cover the risk as contemplated under the Act. Therefore, the appeals are allowed. The liability, insofar as the same is fastened on the appellant, is set aside. The respondents-claimants are left to their remedies as against the owner of vehicle. 5. The amount in deposit be refunded to the appellant.