Case: New India Assurance Co. Ltd Vs. Sadanand Mukhi

in the claim petition or otherwise, he himself was to be blamed for the accident. The accident did not involve motor vehicle other than the one which he was driving. The question which arises for consideration is that the deceased himself being negligent, the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 would be maintainable.11. Liability of the insurer Company is to the extent of indemnification of the insured against the respondent or an injured person, a third person or in respect of damages of property. Thus, if the insured cannot be fastened with any liability under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, the question of the insurer being liable to indemnify the insured, therefore, does not arise." It was furthermore held :- "13. The additional premium was not paid in respect of the entire risk of death or bodily injury of the owner of the vehicle. If that be so, Section 147(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act which in no uncertain terms covers a risk of a third party only would be attracted in the present case." The matter came up for consideration yet again in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Meena Variyal [(2007) 5 SCC 428] wherein it was observed :- "13. As we understand Section 147(1) of the Act, an insurance policy thereunder need not cover the liability in respect of death or injury arising out of and in the course of the employment of an employee of the person insured by the policy, unless it be a liability arising under the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 in respect of a driver, also the conductor, in the case of a public service vehicle, and the one carried in the vehicle as owner of the goods or his representative, if it is a goods vehicle. It is provided that the policy also shall not be required to cover any contractual liability. Uninfluenced by authorities, we find no difficulty in understanding this provision as one providing that the policy must insure an owner against any liability to a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place, and against death or bodily injury to any passenger of a public service vehicle caused by or arising out of the use of vehicle in a public place. The proviso clarifies that the policy shall not be required to cover an employee of the insured in respect of bodily injury or death arising out of and in the course of his employment. Then, an exception is provided to the last foregoing to the effect that the policy must cover a liability arising under the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 in respect of the death or bodily injury to an employee who is engaged in driving the vehicle or who serves as a conductor in a public service vehicle or an employee who travels in the vehicle of the employer carrying goods if it is a goods carriage. Section 149(1), which casts an obligation on an insurer to satisfy an award, also speaks only of award in respect of such liability as is required to be covered by a policy under clause (b) of sub- section (1) of Section 147 (being a liability covered by the terms of the policy). This provision cannot therefore be used to enlarge the liability if it does not exist in terms of Section 147 of the Act.14. The object of the insistence on insurance under Chapter XI of the Act thus seems to be to compulsorily cover the liability relating to their person or properties of third parties and in respect of employees of the insured employer, the liability that may arise under the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 in respect of the driver, the conductor and the one carried in a goods vehicle carrying goods. On this plain understanding of Section 147, we find it difficult to hold that the Insurance Company, in the case on hand, was liable to indemnify the owner, the employer Company, the insured, in respect of the death of one of its employees, who according to the claim, was not the driver. Be it noted that the liability is not one arising under the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 and it is doubtful, on the case put forward by the claimant, whether the deceased could be understood as a workman coming within the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923. Therefore, on a plain reading of Section 147 of the Act, it appears to be clear that the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the insured in the case on hand." The said principle was reiterated in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Davinder Singh, [ (2007) 8 SCC 698 ] holding :- "10. It is, thus, axiomatic that whereas an insurance company may be held to be liable to indemnify the owner for the purpose of meeting the object and purport of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, the same may not be necessary in a case where an insurance company may refuse to compensate the owner of the vehicle towards his own loss. A distinction must be borne in mind as regards the statutory liability of the insurer vis-à-vis the purport and object sought to be achieved by a beneficent legislation before a forum constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act and enforcement of a contract qua contract before a Consumer Forum." 19. Learned counsel for the respondents would contend that the object and purport of the Act being to cover the risk to life of any person, the said decision should be applied in this case also. We do not think that it would be a correct reading of the said judgment as therein National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Laxmi Narain Dhut, [ (2007) 3 SCC 700 ] has been followed. In Laxmi Narain Dhut (supra) a distinction between a statutory policy and a contractual policy has clearly been made out.These decisions, clearly, are applicable to the fact of the present case.20.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]The provisions of the Act, therefore, provide for two types of insurance - one statutory in nature and the other contractual in nature. Whereas the insurance company is bound to compensate the owner or the driver of the motor vehicle in case any person dies or suffers injury as a result of an accident; in case involving owner of the vehicle or others are proposed to be covered, an additional premium is required to be paid for covering their life andis not a case where even Section 163-A of the Act was resorted to. Respondents filed an application under Section 166 of the Act. Only an act policy was taken in respect of the motor vehicle. Submission of the learned counsel that being a two wheelers, the vehicle was more prone to accident and, therefore, whosoever becomes victim of an accident arising out of the use thereof would come within the purview of the term "a person" as provided for in Section 147 of the Act, in our opinion, is notbecause driving of a motor vehicle may cause accident involving loss of life and property not only of a third party but also the owner of the vehicle and the insured vehicle itself, different provisions have been made in the Insurance Act as also the Act laying down different types of insurance policies. The amount of premium required to be paid for each of the policy is governed by the Insurance Act. A statutory regulatory authority fixes the norms and theUnited India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh, [ (2006) 4 SCC 404  ] this Court considered the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 as also 1988 Act and inter alia opined that the insurance company would have no liability towards the injuries suffered by the deceased who was a pillion rider, as the insurance policy was a statutory policy which did not cover the gratuitousdo not think that it would be a correct reading of the said judgment as therein National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Laxmi Narain Dhut, [ (2007) 3 SCC 700  ] has been followed. In Laxmi Narain Dhut (supra) a distinction between a statutory policy and a contractual policy has clearly been made out.These decisions, clearly, are applicable to the fact of the present case.