440 1 FAO No33270f2003 2 t Pm Civil Rcvision No987 of 2003 Vijay Kumar and another AppellantSe versus C Thc New lndia Assurance Companyand others 0 0 Respondcnts I C5 CORAM 1 iiONI3LK MRJlJSTICK KCPlJRI I Z Present Mr SNSaini Advocate for thc appellants Mr PardcepGoyal Advocatc and Mr Vivck Singal Advocate for thc rcspondcnt Insurance Company I a5 KeCPURI Je 7 By this common order 1 intend to disposeof FAO N113327 Z 0 of 2003 titled as Vijay Kumar and anothcr versus Thc New India Assurancc Companyand othcrs FAO N03328 of 2003 titled as Vijay Kumar and another versus The Ncw lndia Assurance Companyand others Civil Rcvision N03987 of 2003 Vijay Kumar and another versus Thc Ncw India Assuranec Companyand others Olcd by Ilw ner and driver tIf the offendingvchiclcs for absolvingthcm from the Iiabilityto pay thc compensation amount Factual tnatrix comprisinothc claim pctition shorn of details is that on 2061999 at about 61700 AM Subhash now deceasedlOm Parkash son of Ram Kishan and Sumit son of Singh Gagan Preet 2012.08.30 14: 35 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 441 rC FAO No 3327 of 2003 3 2 1 ram Pal resident ofRatia were comingfrom Rajasthan in a TATA 407 truck bcaringrcgistrationNo RJ 18711 184 after purchasing onlOnS from Rajasthanand they were travelingin the said vehicle in thecapacityof owncrs of the goodsThe ofendingtruck was driven by its driver ie respondentNol and when the said vehicle reached Fatehabadand was goingto Ratia the driver ofthe said vehicle became 0 C tired and started drivingthe vehicle on a very high speedrashly I 0 negligentlyinazig zagmanner and without adheringto the trafllc I rules to reach the destination When the above said vehicle reached Z near the Tehsil ctlmplex in Ratia Town the driver of the above said vehiclestruck the vehicle into the wall ofTehsil complexand due to this I thetruck turned turtle Duc to the accident Om Parkash Subhash and 08 Amit received multipleSerlOllS and grievousinjuriesOm Parkash and Subhashdied duc to thc injuries The accident took placepurely and 7 Z due to the rash and negligentdrivingof respondcntNol m who was under the employmentof respondent No2 and the accident wascaused duringthc course ofhis employment under respondent Noel and thc vehicle is insured with respondent No No 1 and 2 flled a joint written statement and deniedany lapseon the part ofrespondent Nol in causinglhe accident andallegedthat respondcntNol Ram Chand was drivingthe 01ending vehicle at a proper speed It was also allegedthat respondentNol 1S havinga valid drivinglicence and theyare liable to indemnifyin case of any liabilityThey further allegedthat respondentNol while driving the offendingvehicle was going to Ratia on his left hand side on Singh Gagan Preet 2012.08.30 14: 35 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 442 1 F10 No 3327 of2003 4 5 a4atehabad Ratia road and on rcachingoppositeto Tehsil building immediately and suddenlysonlC COws canlC from the right hand side and startcd crossingthc FatehabadeRatia road The rcspondent lll order to save the accident and the cows turned the vehicle but the 1 steering of the vehiclc g01broke and the vehicle went out of control and 0 struck intt1 the hsil building Hcncc pctitioners N o 1 and 2 have 0 0 prayed for the dismissal ofthc pctition I C5 Similarlyrespondent No New India Assurance company I Limited in their separate written statement denied their liability Z allcgingthat Il O such accident took placewith Tata 407 truck No RJ 18G11184and the criminal casc registcredagainstrespondent No 1 lS false and baseless as the oOetldingvehicle was not at all I a5 involved in the allegcdaccident The petititInershave got no connection whatsoever with thc allegeddcceascd and thc amount claimed by them 17 Z 1S highly one and without any base and in the last it was prayedthat the petitionbe dismisscd As mentioned above vide order dated 862000 all these claim petitions were consolidated in petitionmentioned at SrNol and the followingconsolidated lssues were framed for the disposalof a11 thesethree petitionsl 1 Whether Subhash Chand and Om Parkash were killed and Amit Kumar sufTercdinjuriesin thc vehicular accident on 20699 owningto rash and negligentdriving of truck No RJaG11184 by Ram Chander respondentNoel 2 OPP Singh Gagan Preet 2012.08.30 14: 35 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 443 4D 1 1 FAO No3327of2003 5 SP 2 T0 what amount of conlpensationSmt Nirmala Devi and others in casc No 43 of 199912000are entitled to if So from whom2 OPP Now petitionNo 60 of 19991 3e T0 what amount of compensationAmit Kumar petititlnerin case No 44 of 199912000is cntitled ifso from whom2 OPP Now petitionNo 62 of 19991 0 0 4e To what amount of Smt Sudesh Rani I C5 and others in case No 45 of 199912000are entitled to if 1 I so from whom2 OPP Now pctitionNo 61 of 19991 Z 5e Whcther thc New India Assurance Co Ltd Respondent Ntl3 is not liabIe to indcmnifythe insured on the grounds mcntioned in thc written statement flled by it2 OPR3 08 6 Relief On apprcciationrIf the evidcncc and aftcr hearinglearned 7 counsel for the partics thc Iearned Tribunal has acccptedthe claim petitionand awardcd compensationt0 thc claimants holding d river and thc owncr of the ofTendingvchiclc to make payment of the com pcnsationamounte Feelingdissatisfied wi the aforcsaid award the owner and drivcr of thc offcndingvehiclc have prcfcrrcd the instant appeals and rcvision pctitionmentioned abovc bcforcthis Courtflrabsolving them from the Iiability 1 have heard Icarncd counsel for thc particsand have gone throughthe records of thc casc Singh Gagan Preet 2012.08.30 14: 35 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 444 FAO No 3327of2003 6 4 5 e Learnedcounsel for the claimants has submitted that the Tribunal has absolved the Insurance company on account of the fact that the deceased were travelingIn a goodscarner as gratuitous So the Insurance company is not iiable to pay the The reliance has been placed by the Tribunal on authorityreportedas New lndia Assurance Companv vse Asha Rani 0 0 and others III 20021ACC 753 SupremeCourt It is submitted that I C5 above said relate to the periodprior to amendment of the I Motor Vehicles Act in 1994 It is contended that the deceased were Z traveiingIn a goodsvehicle beingthe owner of onions loaded in the Canter in questionThey were travelingin the cabin of canter in The Apex Court in authorityreportedas National Insurance 08 CompanLimited vs Cholleti Bharatamma and others 200811 SCC OO 4 has held that if the deceased were travelingas owner or as ew authorized Itl that case they are not the gratuitous and the Insurance company is liable to pay the amount Specific amendment in Section 147 was added by the Amended Act 1994 The amended provisions of the Act is reproduced as under 147 Requirementsof policies and Iimits of Iiabilitye 11 ln order to comply with the of this Chapter a policyof insurance must be a policywhicl al X X X bl insures the person or cIasses of persons in the policyto the extent specifiedin subm Singh Gagan Preet 2012.08.30 14: 35 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 445 5 FAO N 3327of2003 m7 section 29 r 4 ilagainstany liabilitywhich may be incurred by him in respectof the death of or bodilyinjuryto anyperson includingowner of the goodsor his authorised carried in the vehicle 1 or damageto any propertyof a third party r caused by or arisingout of the use of the vehicle 0 0 ln a publicplace I C5 iil X X X x99 In reply to the above mentioned submission learned Z counsel for the Insu rance company has submitted that there is no evidenceon the flle that deceased were travelingas owner of the onions C Ioadedin the canter So the Insurance company has rightly been held I 08 not Iiable to pay the amount of in view of Asha Ranis 10 case 1Suprale a7 Z However it is not disputedduringthe course of arguments Qm that after the amendment of 1994 the owner or the authorized agent are competentto traveI in the goodscarrier 1 have given my thoughtfulconsideration to the rivaI submissionof counsel for both the sides and have also gone throughthe record ofthe casee The moot point for determination in the presentlis is whether the deceased or the injuredtravelingin the offendingvehicle were the owners of onions Ioaded in the truck The Tribunal after the evidence on the Ole returned the Onding that claimantshave not been able to prove that deceased were travelingIn Singh Gagan Preet 2012.08.30 14: 35 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 1 446 r FAO No 3327of 2003 8 Y93 thecapacity as owners of the onions in as much as there is no evidence 1 that onions were Ioaded in the vehicle and the travellers were owners and of the owners for carryingthe onlonSe However thataspectof the case has not been properlyappreciatedPW3 Amit Kumar slo has categorically stated that he alongwithhis uncle Subhash and Om Parkash was coming on offendingvehicle Q TATA 407 to Ratia The said TATA 407 was loaded with OnionseThis 0 witness has stated that his u ncle Subhash and Om Parkash Were 0 I in TATA 407 as owner of the onionseSo it cannot be said that C there is no evidence that passengers were travellingin TATA 407 as Z owner of the onions In Cholleti Bharatammas case ipral the Honble Apex Court has held that if the persons are travellingin a Otr 1 goodsvehicle being ownei ln that case Ill view of mandate of the I 08 Section147 of the Act Insurance company is liable So far as Asha m Ranrs case 1Supralrelied upon by the Tribunal is concerned that 7 Z relatesto the case prior to the amendment Para Noa 90f the said judgmentreads as underl 9e ln Satpals case Supral the Court assumed that the provisionsof Section 9511of Motor Vehicles Act 1939are identical with Section 147 11of the Motor VehiclesAct 1988 as it stood priorto its amendmente Buta careful scrutinyof the provisions would make it clear that prior to the amendment of 1994 it was not for the insurer to insure againstthe owner of the goodsor his authorized being 4 carried in a goodsvehicle On an erroneous 1 1 Singh Gagan Preet 2012.08.30 14: 35 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 447 1 1 LI FAO No 3327of2003 4 6 this Court came to the conclusion that the 3 insurer would be Iiable to pay compensationin respect of the death or bodily injury caused to either the owner of the goodsor his authorized when beingcarried in a goodsvehicle the accident 1 occurred If the Motor Vehicles Amended Act of 1994 1S examined particularlySection 46 of the Act 60f 0 C 1991 bywhich expressioninjury to any person in the I C10 originalAct stood substituted by the expression I injury to any person includingowner of the goodsor his authorized representativecarried in the vehicle theconclusion is irresistible that priorto the aforesaid l I amendment Act of 1994 even if widest interpretation a5 is given to the expressionto any person it will not cover either the owner of the goodsor his authorized 7 being carried in the vehiclee The objectionsand reasons of Clause 46 also states that it seeksto amend Section 147 to include owner of the goodsor his authorized carried in the vehicle for the purposes of liability under the lnsurance PolicyeIt is no doubt true that sometimes the Legislatu re amends the law by way of and clarification of an inherent position which is there in the statute but a plain meaning beinggivento the words used in the statute as it stood prior to its amendment of 1994 and as it stands Singh Gagan Preet 2012.08.30 14: 35 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 448 l FAO No 3327of2003 10 1 e2 to its amendment in 1994 and bearingIll eW mind the objects and reasons engraftedin the amendedprovisionsreferred to earlier it is difficult for us to construe that the expressionincluding owner of the goodsor his authorized carried in the vehicle which was added to the pre 0 existed expressioninjury to any person is either C clarification or amplificationof the I C statutee On the other hand it clearlydemonstrates that I the Legislaturewanted to bring within the sweep of Section 147 and makingit compulsoryfor the insurer r to insure even in case of a goodsvehicle the owner of I the goodsor his authorized being 08 oo carried in a goods vehicle when that vehicle met with a an accident and the owner of the goodsor his either dies or suffers bodilyinjury The judgmentof this Court in SatpaIs case therefore must be held to have not been correctlydecided and the judgments of the Tribunal as well as that of the High Court accordinglyare set aside and these appealsare allowed It is held that the insurer will not be Iiable for paying compensationto the owner of goodsor his authorized on beingcarried in a goodsvehicle when that vehicle meets with an accident and the owner of goodsor his dies or suffers any bodilyinjurye Singh Gagan Preet 2012.08.30 14: 35 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 449 FAO No 3327of2003 1 Iyl 5 4 O S3 SinhaJ Leave grantedin specialleave petitionse 2eThoughI respectfullyagree with the j udgmentand order proposedto be delivered by My Lord the Chief Justiee of Indiae havingregardto the im portanceof the questionsinvolved in the matter I would Iike to 1 add a few words of mine 0 C3 3alt is not in disputethat in this batch of appealsthe I of action in each case arose prior to coming into cause C5 I force of 1994 Amendment in the Motor Vehicles Act Z 1988 and thus the eHect thereof wouId have no bearingin the instant casee t 4 The controversyin the instant case centres round the I 08 changes effected in the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 vismae r vis the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 As would appear from 7 Z the d iscussions made hereinafter a goodsvehicle was Qm required to be compulsorilycovered by Insurance Policyin terms of 1939 Act but was not so requiredln terms of 1988Actl So it is categorically mentioned that after the amendment of 1994 In Section 147 the Insurance company would be Iiable if the are travelingas owner of the goodse Soin View of the above discussion both the appealsas well as the revision petitionstand acceptedby settingaside that part of awardvide which the liabilityof lnsurance company has been absolvede Singh Gagan Preet 2012.08.30 14: 35 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 450 FAO No 3327of2003 2 It is held that Insurancecompany is also Iiable jointlyand severallyto of Puri l Mayl9K 2010 Judge SVlchugh 1 0 0 I C I Z I C45 00 W2 Z 1ttO 7 L4 1 t 44 1 Cf1 l 61 O4I Ie 4h 11v rc IO 1 Singh Gagan Preet 2012.08.30 14: 35 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document