THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED MA C.M.A.No. 1416 of 2001 JUDGMENT: The Insurance company is the appellant, who filed the appeal challenging the quantum of compensation granted in O.P.No. 366 of 1992 dated 17.12.1997 on the file of Motor Accident Claim Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Khammam District, filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for the injuries caused to the claimant. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the claimant in O.P.No. 366 of 1992 is a Hamali aged 35 years and he is earning Rs. 600/- per month. It is stated that he was also engaged by the second respondent in OP to unload Chilli Seedlings at Kunavaram. Due to accident he sustained injuries and a fracture to his left leg and he was admitted in a Government Hospital, Bhadrachalam and doctor asked him to take two months bed rest. He claimed Rs. 6,000/- towards medical expenses , Rs. 2,000/- towards extra nourishment, Rs. 1200 towards loss of earnings, Rs. 8,000/- towards attendant charges, Rs. 10,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs. 20,000/- towards loss of comforts and enjoyment of life and Rs. 10,000/- towards disability in all Rs. 50,000/-. 3. Respondents 1 and 2 in OP filed counter denying the averments made in the petition and they put the claimant to strict proof of his age and income. They alleged that there was no rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver while driving the vehicle and the accident occurred due to the negligence of the claimant. They are also stated that there was a valid insurance policy covered covering the risk of the vehicle and therefore, they were not liable to pay the compensation and it is the Insurance Company that was liable to pay the compensation and therefore, they prayed for dismissal of the petition with costs. 4. Respondent No. 3 –Insurance Company filed counter putting the claimant to prove that the driver of the lorry i.e., respondent No.1 drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident and it argued that the claimant was not carrying the goods in the vehicle on the date of accident and passengers were travelling in the body of the lorry therefore, they are not entitled to any compensation by virtue of the conditions of the policy. 5. The Tribunal below framed the following issues for trial: (i) Whether the petitioner Jampani Rama Rao sustained injuries due to the rash and negligent driving of ADI 1733 lorry Tata made, by its driver, R1? (ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? (iii) To what relief? 6. The first claimant in OP No. 366 of 1992 was examined as PW-5 and Exs A1 to A22 were marked. 7. The Tribunal after taking into consideration the evidence available on record and also considering the Ex. C2 wound certificate, wherein the doctor did not mention the percentage of disability and Ex. C2 wherein the doctor mentioned the fracture of patella as confirmed by the wound certificate, and the age of the claimant is abut 38 years he could not have gone to his duties for a period of two months could have sustained loss of Rs. 1500/- towards earnings and he could have spent about Rs. 3,000/- towards medical expenses and pain and suffering for fracture, fracture being patella an amount of Rs. 10,000/- was granted. In all Rs. 20,000/- compensation was granted with interest at 12% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation with proportionate costs. Aggrieved by the same, the present CMA has been filed by the Insurance company. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company submits that the claimant himself stated that he boarded along with hen, in his evidence and more so, the accident occurred prior to the amendment and the amended Act came into force with effect from 14th November 1994, therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation and the owner of the lorry is liable to pay the compensation. 9. The point that arises for consideration is whether the Insurance company is liable to pay the compensation? 10. As seen from the record, it is no doubt true that the accident was occurred on 26.11.1991 and the amendment to the Act came into force with effect from 14th November 1994. Hence, the accident was occurred prior to the amendment. It is also no doubt true that the claimant himself in his examination stated that he boarded along with hen. The Supreme Court in NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. ASHA RANI AND OTHERS[1] at paragraphs 9, 29 and 30 held as under: “9. 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 AIR 2000 SC 235 : 1999 AIR SCW 4337 @page-SC613 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 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 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. 29. We may consider the matter for another angle. Section 149(2) of the 1988 Act enables the insurers to raise defences against the claim of the claimants. In terms of clause (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 149 of the Act one of the defences which is available to the insurer is that the vehicle in question has been used for a purpose not allowed by the permit under which the vehicle was used. Such a statutory defence available to the insurer would be obliterated in view of the decision of this Court in Satpal Singh's case (supra). 30. For the foregoing reasons, I am in respectful agreement with My Lord the Chief Justice of India that the decision of this Court in New India Assurance Company v. Satpal Singh and Ors., (2000) 1 SCC 237, has not laid down the law correctly and should be overruled. AIR 2000 SC 235 : 1999 AIR SCW 4337 11. Following the above judgment, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company stands allowed holding that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date: 24.06.2010 KA [1] 2003 ACJ 1