THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL Nos.345, 350, 377 and 378 of 2001 June 20, 2011 Between: The National Insurance Company Ltd., represented by its Divisional Manager, Arundalpet, Guntur … Appellants And Kancherla Mary, W/o.Prabhakar Rao And others ... Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL Nos.345, 350, 377 and 378 of 2001 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) These appeals by the 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 under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act). The appeals, before the 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 are 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 the appellant, met with an accident resulting in injuries to three persons and death of Kattupalli Kumari, predecessor of respondents 2 to 4 in LPA No.378 of 2001. They instituted O.Ps under Section 163A of the Act claiming compensation. The Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal, Guntur dismissed the claims against the insurance company on the ground that they were unauthorized 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. The learned Single Judge, following the judgment of the Supreme Court in New India Assurance Company Limited v Satpal Singh[1], held that even gratuitous passengers traveling in a goods vehicle are entitled to claim compensation under the Act. The appeals of the claimants were, accordingly, partly allowed with modified awards. 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 Company Limited v Asha Rani[2], the impugned judgments of the learned Single Judge are unsustainable. 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 Asha Rani, while overruling the earlier decision in Satpal Singh, 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-existed 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. The ratio in Asha Rani was followed in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v Devireddy Konda Reddy[3], National Insurance Co. Ltd. v Ajit Kumar[4], National Insurance Co. Ltd. v Bommithi Subbhayamma[5] and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v Prema Devi[6] and New India Assurance Company Limited v Vedwati[7]. 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 traveling 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. 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, under Section 147(1)(i) of the Act insurer is not required to insure the gratuitous passengers travelling in the goods vehicle. This was also made clear in Asharani. 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 v Nanjappan[8]. The appeallant shall be entitled to recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) _______________________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J) June 20, 2011 YS [1] (2000) 1 SCC 237 = AIR 2000 SC 235 = 1999 AIR SCW 4337 = 2000 ACJ 1 [2] (2003) 2 SCC 223 = AIR 2003 SC 607 = 2002 AIR SCW 5259 [3] (2003) 2 SCC 339 [4] (2003) 9 SCC 668 = AIR 2003 SC 3093 [5] (2005) 12 SCC 243 [6] (2008) 5 SCC 403 [7] (2007) 9 SCC 486 = AIR 2007 SC 1334 [8] AIR 2004 SC 1630