IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL Nos.723 and 811 OF 1999 & CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2167 OF 1999 CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL Nos.723 and 811 OF 1999 BETWEEN New India Assurance Company Limited. …APPELLANT AND Thuraka Ramanamma and others. …RESPONDENTS CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2167 OF 1999 BETWEEN New India Assurance Company Limited. …PETITIONER AND Gunji Venkata Ramanaiah and others. …RESPONDENTS Counsel for the appellant/petitioner: Mr. S. A. Chari Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. CH. Krishna Reddy The Court made the following: - COMMON JUDGMENT: These two appeals and the revision petition arise out of a common order in O.P.No.111 of 1992 and batch, all decided by the learned II Additional District Judge cum Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nellore, dated 16.11.1998. The present appeals and the revision petition are preferred by the insurance company. 2. These cases deal with some of the claims in the aforesaid Ops arising out of victims having died, while some of the claims relate to where victims have suffered injuries. The compensation awarded by the tribunal in cases of fatal accident is for various amounts and for injuries also each case is separately assessed and compensation was awarded. In this case, however, we are not concerned with the quantum of compensation as the question of law is involved, which calls for adjudication. 3. The admitted case of the claimants in all these cases is that they are all vegetable vendors and they were traveling in the offending lorry bearing No. ATG 3033, which was already carrying 7½ tones of cement from Vijayawada to Nellore. The driver of the vehicle, which was owned by the R.W.3 and insured by the appellant, has permitted the victims, who include the deceased as well as the injuried along with their vegetable baskets. The accident occurred on 28.07.1991, when they all boarded the offending lorry, as the vehicle was being driven at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner resulting in deaths and injuries. Since the vehicle was insured with the appellant-insurance company various claim petitions were filed by the legal representatives of the deceased and the injured persons. Against the awards of the tribunal below, various appeals were preferred by the insurance company including these two appeals and the revision petition. 4. Mr. S.A. Chari, learned counsel for the appellant – insurance company, contended that the awards in question are not sustainable, primarily for the reason that admittedly the victims were traveling along with their vegetable baskets in a transport vehicle and the insurance policy does not cover such passengers. He has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in MALLAWWA v. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.[1]. He further submits that though the passengers were traveling along with their vegetable baskets, it cannot be said that they were traveling with goods as contemplated under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) as the amendment to sub-clause (1)(b)(i) of Section 147 is only prospective in nature. He relied upon another decision of the Supreme Court in NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. BALJIT KAUR[2]. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents/claimants submits that admittedly the victims were traveling with the goods and as such, they fall within the definition of ‘owner traveling with goods’ under section 147 of the Act. He also submits that in a similar matter arising out of the same batch, where CMA.Mo.694 of 199 was preferred by the appellant herein, this Court dismissed the said appeal following the decision of the Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Satpal Singh ((2000) 1 SCC 237 = 2000 (1) ACJ 1). 6. The point that arises for consideration, therefore, is whether under Section 147 of the Act the liability can be imposed on the insurance company in the admitted facts of the case apart from the decision in MALLAWWA’s case (1 supra). In a case falling within the definition of the owner of the goods carried in the goods carriage as contemplated under Section 147 (1)(b)(i) of the Act, the case would be governed by MALLAWWA’s case (1 supra). In BALJIT KAUR’s case (2 supra) it has been held by the Supreme Court that the words “injury to any persons, including owner of the goods or his authorized representative carried in the vehicle” were inserted in Section 147(1)(b)(i) of the Act by amendment Act 54 of 1994 with effect from 14.11.1994 and consequently the said amendment is held to be prospective. In the present case, the accident in question occurred on 28.07.1991 and the claim petitions were filed in December 1991. The amended provisions of Section 147(1)(b)(i) of the Act, therefore, are not applicable to this case. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents based upon Satpal Singh’s decision being followed by this Court earlier is concerned, it is not in dispute that the said decision was overruled by the Supreme Court in NEW INDIA ASSURANCE Co. Ltd. v. ASHA RANI[3] and as such, the said decision in CMA.No.694 of 1999 dated 20.09.2002 by a learned single Judge, which is purely a view in Satpal Singh’s case, cannot operate any more. The civil miscellaneous appeals and the civil revision petition are accordingly allowed and the awards in question are set aside. However, the liability so far as the driver and owner of the vehicle is concerned, the same cannot be interfered with in the absence of any appeal by them and it is open to the claimants to recover the compensation awarded from the owner of the offending vehicle. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J September 11, 2009 DSK [1] AIR 1999 SC 589 [2] AIR 2004 SC 1340 [3] 2003 ACJ 1