D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 23/2001 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Mani & ors. Date of Order :: 21-08-2008 HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. NARAYAN ROY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA Mr. M.P.Goswami, for the appellant. Mr. K.R.Choudhary , for the respondents. Heard counsel for the parties. This appeal is directed against order dated 24.01.2001 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in S.B.Civil Misc. Appeal no. 103/2001, whereby and whereunder the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred as 'the Tribunal'), asking the Insurance Company to pay the claim of the claimants, has been affirmed. Respondent nos. 1 to 7 were the claimants for compensation before the Tribunal on account of death of the husband of respondent no.1, Idana Ram. According to the case of the claimants Idana Ram was travelling on a tanker which in the way met with an accident, as a result of which the driver of the tanker and Idana Ram died. The Tribunal however, allowed the claim keeping in view the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in case of New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Satpal Singh, 2000 ACJ 1 (SC). The Insurance Company being aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal filed Miscellaneous appeal before this Court challenging the award on the ground, as to whether risk of passengers carried for hire or reward or gratuitously in a goods vehicle is covered, and the Insurance Company is liable for - 2 - death of any such passenger. The learned Single Judge of this Court, again in view of the judgment in New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Satpal Singh (supra) upheld the award passed by the Tribunal, giving rise to this appeal. The question that arises for consideration in this appeal is, as to whether an insurance policy in respect of goods vehicle would also cover gratuitous passengers, in view of the legislative amendment in 1994 to Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The question which has fallen for consideration is no more appears to be res integra in view of the judgments of the Supreme Court in case of New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Asha Rani, 2003 ACJ 1 (SC) and in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Baljit Kaur & ors., 2004 ACJ 428 (SC). The earlier ratio laid down by the Apex Court in case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Satpal Singh (supra) was tested in case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani as referred to above, and the judgment in Satpal Singh's case was doubted, and it was held that in view of the amendment of 1994 it would only cover a third party as also the owner of goods or his authorised representative and not any passenger carried in goods vehicle, whether for hire or reward or otherwise. Again, in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Baljit Kaur & others (supra) the same view was reiterated, and it was categorically held as under : - 3 - “By reason of the 1994 amendment what was added is, “including owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle”. The liability of the owner of the vehicle to insure it compulsorily, thus, by reason of the aforementioned amendment included only the owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle besides the third parties. The intention of Parliament, therefore, could not have been that the words 'any person' occurring in section 147 would cover all persons who were travelling in a goods carriage in any capacity whatsoever. If such was the intention there was no necessity of Parliament to carry out an amendment inasmuch as the expression 'any person' contained in sub-clause (i) of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 147 would have included the owner of the goods or his authorised representative besides the passengers who are gratuitous or otherwise.” It is not in dispute that the deceased Idana Ram was traveling on the tanker and for which no premium was paid by the owner. No other evidence, however, was led on behalf of the claimants to claim such compensation payable by the Insurance Company. The case at hand, in this view of the matter, is squarely covered by the judgment of the Apex Court as rendered in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Baljit Kaur and others (supra). This appeal accordingly, is allowed. The order impugned and the award passed by the Tribunal are set aside as against the appellant Insurance Company, namely, the New India Assurance Company Ltd. Mathur/- [SANGEET LODHA],J. [NARAYAN ROY],CJ.