1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Misc. Civil Application No.1004 of 2010 in First Appeal No.572 of 1997 (The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Housabai wd/o. Dhulaji Shinde and Ors.) _____________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. CORAM : A.P.BHANGALE, J. DATED : SEPTEMBER 09, 2011. Heard Mr. Gautam Chatterjee, Adv. for the applicant and Mr.Saurabh Joshi, Adv. holding for Mr.C.A.Joshi, Adv. for respondent nos. 1 to 6. By this application for review, it is the grievance of the applicant that, on account of mistake regarding the date of accident which occurred in the judgment as '24/2/1996' instead of '24/4/1994', the Court arrived at the conclusion that the insurer is jointly liable along with the owner and the driver of the offending motor vehicle to pay compensation awarded with interest to the claimants. Notice was issued to the claimants (Original appellants) who do not dispute that the correct date of accident was, in fact, 24/4/1994. Under these circumstances, in view of 2 the ruling in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Asha Rani and Ors. reported in AIR 2003 SC 607 (Para 9), the Apex Court considered the amendment in Section 147 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1983 which came into force w.e.f. 14.11.1994. The insurer, in view of the observations made by the Apex Court, could not have been held liable jointly and severally along with the owner and the driver of the offending motor vehicle; but, for the mistake which occurred in the judgment regarding the date of accident. The learned Counsel, therefore, prayed for review of the judgment and order in First Appeal No.572 of 1997, which was decided by this Court on 10th December, 2009. The learned Advocate on behalf of the Original appellant do not dispute about correct date of accident as also about the ruling in the case of Asha Rani (cited supra), but submitted that the Court may mould the relief in the interest of justice. The question, in view of the amendment to Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, arises as to whether the insurer can be held liable along with the owner and the driver of the offending motor vehicle to pay compensation, as awarded. It may be noted that the Apex Court 3 observed thus : “In Satpal's case (supra), the Court assumed that the provisions of Section 95(1) of 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 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 Amended Act of 1994 is examined, particularly Section 46 of Act 6 of 1991 by which 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 4 to the aforesaid Amendment Act of 1994, even if 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 states that it seeks to amend Section 147 to include owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle for the purposes of liability under the Insurance Policy. It is no doubt true that sometimes the legislature amends the law by way of amplification 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 pre-existed expression 'injury to any person' is either clarificatory or amplification of the pre-existing statute. On the other hand, it clearly demonstrates that 5 the legislature wanted to being 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 or 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. “ Considering the interpretation of Section 147 as amended and the observations made in respect thereof, the insurer, in such a case when the accident occurred prior to the date of 6 amendment, could not have been liable to make payment of compensation to the claimants. That being so, the review application is allowed partly as under : The applicant (insurer) is not liable to make payment of compensation for the reasons stated as above. The final order is modified as under : The owner and/or driver of the offending motor vehicle bearing Registration No. MH-30 A-9290 (as on the date of accident) shall be liable jointly and severally to pay the sum of Rs.95,040/- along with interest, as ordered by the Tribunal. The Award stands modified accordingly. The Tribunal be informed regarding modification of the order, as above. JUDGE jais