Court : Supreme Court of India
Brief : Motor Vehicles Act (1988), Section 147, and Amendment Act of 1984,
Scope, Insurance - Question set down for consideration by the Supreme Court as arising
in the batch of cases, centres around the liability of the Insurance Company to indemnify the owner of the vehicle in respect of death of passengers travelling in goods carriage -Dates of accident being different, different provisions would apply - Law operating in the
field noticed and applied in each case separately.
Citation : 2008-2-L.W. 1
National Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Cholleti Bharatamma & Others
Act does not contemplate that a goods carriage shall carry a large number of passengers with small percentage of goods as considerably the insurance policy covers
the death or injuries either of the owner of the goods or his authorized representative.
CA@SLP (C) Nos.7237-7239 of 2003: Claimants were traveling in a lorry. It was a goods carriage carrying goods like rice, tent, house articles, chairs, utensils and vegetables required on the occasions of marriage. As a result of rash and negligent driving of the driver, the lorry struck on a stationary truck. Several people suffered injuries. Two of them died. Claim applications were filed on behalf of the injured as also the dependants of the deceased. Date of accident being 16.12.1993, the amendment carried out in the year 1994 in Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act would not be
applicable. MAC Tribunal awarded various sums overruling the defence of the appellant herein that they were unauthorized passengers. High Court dismissed the appeal.
held: by Supreme Court the impugned judgment is not sustainable and has to be set aside.
CA @ SLP (C) No.7241-7243 / 03 : In respect of the accident on 24.12.1993, Respondents herein filed a claim petition claiming compensation for the death of one KV who had allegedly paid a sum of Rs.20/- for travelling in the lorry. Tribunal observed that it is not a fundamental breach so as to afford to the insurer to eschew the liability altogether. Appeal therefrom was dismissed by High Court.
Held: In this case, the High Court had proceeded on the basis that they were gratuitous passengers. The admitted plea of the respondents themselves was that the deceased had boarded the lorry and paid an amount of Rs.20/- as transport charges. It has not been proved that the deceased was travelling in the lorry along with the driver or the cleaner as the owner of the goods. Travelling with the goods itself does not entitle anyone to protect under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Appeal dismissed. CA @ SLP (C) No.7248/03: Accident in this case took place on 03.01.1991. Twenty persons were travelling in the truck. Tribunal held "As the seating capacity of the lorry is only 3 as per Ex.B1 and B3 and as the risk of only owner of goods is covered by Ex.B2 policy, whereas about 40 to 42 persons travelled in the lorry by sitting on the load, which is not permitted. "..... The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that it cannot be fastened with the liability for compensation" was to be accepted. High Court dismissed the appeals. Held: by Supreme Court, in the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the opinion that the contention of the respondent should be accepted.
CA @ SLP (C) Nos.7288-7290 /03: Accident took place on 01.05.1997. Indisputably, the respondent was travelling as a passenger. The Tribunal, therefore,
correctly recorded that according to PW-2, he was travelling with his goods as owner thereof and not the deceased. Three persons who were travelling in the vehicle had been killed. Claims for compensation were filed before the MAC Tribunal. The appellants therein opposed the claim. Tribunal awarded compensation to the legal heirs of the
deceased. Challenging the legality of the award of the Tribunal, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the deceased were gratuitous passengers and the policy did not cover their lives. While stating that the submissions of learned counsel for insurance company could not be sustained, the High Court dismissed the appeal of the insurance company following Satpal Singh. Held: by Supreme Court: In view of the nature of evidence available before us, we have no other option but to set aside the judgment. These appeals are, therefore, allowed.
