Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 452 (AP)

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kancherla Mary

2011-06-20

RAMESH RANGANATHAN, V.V.S.RAO

body2011
JUDGMENT : V.V.S. RAO, J. These appeals by National Insurance Co. Ltd., Guntur are against the common judgment dated 23.1.2001 of the learned single Judge in A.A.O. Nos. 958, 964, 969 and 1148 of 2000 u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act'). The appeals, before learned single Judge, arose against separate orders in M.V.O.P. Nos. 94, 95, 96 and 141 of 1996. To the extent necessary for disposal of these LPAs, the brief background of the matters is as follows. The respondents are either the injured persons or the legal heirs of the deceased. The deceased and injured persons boarded a lorry bearing No. ADG 7749 on 19.8.1995 along with steel vessels. The lorry, which was insured by appellant, met with an accident resulting in injuries to three persons and death of Kattupalli Kumari, predecessor of respondent Nos. 2 to 4 in LPA No. 378 of 2001. They instituted O.Ps. u/s 163A of the Act claiming compensation. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Guntur, dismissed the claims against the insurance company on the ground that they were unauthorised passengers in the goods vehicle. The Tribunal, however, awarded compensation as against the owner of the vehicle. Aggrieved by the same, the claimants filed appeals before this court. 2. The learned single Judge, following the judgment of the Supreme Court in New India Assurance Company Vs. Shri Satpal Singh and Others, (2000) 1 SCC 237 , held that even gratuitous passengers travelling in a goods vehicle are entitled to claim compensation under the Act. The appeals of the claimants were, accordingly, partly allowed with modified awards. 3. In these appeals, the only contention raised by the learned counsel for the insurer is that the ratio in Satpal Singh having been overruled in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Asha Rani and Others, (2003) 3 SCC 223, the impugned judgments of the learned single Judge are unsustainable. 4. Whether a gratuitous passenger or owner of goods travelling in a goods vehicle is entitled to compensation under the insurance policy is a question which is no more res integra. A three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Asha Rani and Others, (2003) 3 SCC 223 while overruling the earlier decision in New India Assurance Company Vs. A three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Asha Rani and Others, (2003) 3 SCC 223 while overruling the earlier decision in New India Assurance Company Vs. Shri Satpal Singh and Others, (2000) 1 SCC 237 held as follows: ...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 objects 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 pre-existing expression 'injury to any person' is either clarificatory or amplification of the pre-existing 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's 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 goods or his authorised representative on being carried in a goods vehicle when that vehicle meets with an accident and the owner of goods or his representative dies or suffers any bodily injury. 5. The ratio in Asha Rani was followed in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Devireddy Konda Reddy and Others etc. etc. and Jogi Subbamma and Others etc. etc., (2003) 2 SCC 339 National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ajit Kumar and Others, (2003) 9 SCC 668 ; National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Bommithi Subbhayamma and Others, (2005) 12 SCC 243 National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Devireddy Konda Reddy and Others etc. etc. and Jogi Subbamma and Others etc. etc., (2003) 2 SCC 339 National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ajit Kumar and Others, (2003) 9 SCC 668 ; National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Bommithi Subbhayamma and Others, (2005) 12 SCC 243 National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Prema Devi and Others, (2008) 5 SCC 403 and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Vedwati and Others, (2007) 9 SCC 486 . In all these judgments, it was held that an unauthorised/gratuitous passenger travelling in a goods carriage is not entitled to claim from the insurance company though such passenger or his/her dependants are entitled to recover compensation from the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident. Thus a gratuitous passenger travelling in a goods vehicle is not covered in the insurance policy and a third party claim for the death/injury of such gratuitous passenger is not maintainable. 6. We may also observe that section 147 of the Act was amended on 14.11.1994. As per the amendment passengers travelling in a goods vehicle, except the owner or his agent, injury/death caused is not required to be compensated by the insurance company. In these cases, accident occurred on 19.8.1998 and, therefore, u/s 147(1)(b)(i) of the Act insurer is not required to insure the gratuitous passengers travelling in the goods vehicle. This was also made clear in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Asha Rani and Others, (2003) 3 SCC 223. In view of the above, these appeals are allowed without any order as to costs. However the compensation, if any, paid to the claimants after passing of the impugned award or during the pendency of the appeals before the learned single Judge or during the pendency of these LPAs, shall not be recovered from them, as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shri Nanjappan and Others, (2004) 13 SCC 224 The appellant shall be entitled to recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle.