IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.388 of 2007 DIVISIONAL MANAGER, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Club Road, Muzaffarpur. ------- Appellant Versus 1. URMILA DEVI, wife of Late Dayanand Sharma. 2. Tapeshwari Devi, wife of Late Laxmi Thakur 3. Kundan Sharma, Son of Late Dayanand Sharma (Minor) 4. Arti Kumari, Daughter of Late Daya Nand Sharma (Minor) 5. Raushan Kumari, Daughter of Late Daya Nand Sharma (Minor). Serial No. 3, 4 and 5 are minor under the Guardianship of their mother. All resident of Village- Chakrawe Maniyari, Post Office- Chandan Patti, Police Station- Sakara, District Muzaffarpur 6. Upendra Kumar Sharma, Son of Late Lal Deo Sharma, resident of Mohalla- Kalambag Road, Post Office- Ramna, Police Station- Kazi Mohammadpur, District- Muzaffarpur -------- Respondents. ----------- 4 19.1.2009 This application has come up before this Court under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Accident Act. The Insurance Company has come up in appeal claiming that the pillion rider travelling with the motor cycle owner would not be entitled to payment of interim relief. The ground on which this objection has been raised is on the basis of a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Shimla Vs. Tilak Singh & Ors. reported in II (2006) ACC 1 (SC). The Court has taken note of the decision in New India Insurance Company Vs. Satpal Singh & Ors. reported in (2000) 1 SCC 237 is not a good law. The decision in Satpal case has - 2 - been overruled by three judges in New India Assurance Co. Vs. Asha Rani reported in (2003)2 SCC 223. The Court after referring to the terms of Section 147 of 1988 Act, as contrasted with Section 95 of the 1939 Act held that Satpal’s case was wrongly decided and it is no longer good law. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimant relied on the decision of Amrit Lal Sood and Anr. Vs. Kaushalya Devi Thapar and Ors. reported in (1998)3 SCC 744. In the aforesaid case it was held that the terms of the Insurance were wide enough so as to include gratuitous passengers. The Section does not require the policy to cover those persons who are gratuitous passengers however, it was held that the Insurer can enter a contract of insurance covering a risk greater than a minimum requirement. The issue with respect to whether the Insurance Policy of the motorcycle owner was a comprehensive policy or not and would cover the case of the claimant would have to be considered by the Court below after examining the Insurance Policy. In the result the order dated 6.6.2007 - 3 - is quashed for two reasons. Firstly, the objection of the New India Insurance Company with respect to demand of interim compensation has to be considered by the Court empowered to hear the matter and secondly the order is quashed on the ground that the Fast Track Court is not empowered under the Motor Vehicles Act to hear cases relating to accident claims. In the result the District Judge, Muzaffarpur is directed to transfer the case to the competent Court who will consider the questions raised by the appellant in this case and dispose of the claim under Section 140 preferably within three months after transfer of the case. This Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)