Case: Smt. Mallawwa Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd

be said to have been carried for hire or reward when he travels in a goods vehicle either on payment of fare or along with his goods. It is not necessary to refer to those decisions which were cited at Bar as we find that all the relevant aspects were not taken into consideration while expressing one view or the other. We may only refer to the decision of the Orissa High Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Kanchan Bewa & Ors., 1994 ACJ 138 , where Hansaria, J. speaking for the Full Bench observed as under :- "18. The aforesaid is not enough to take any view as to whether goods vehicle can or cannot come within the fold or proviso (ii) with which we are concerned. Our primary reason for differing, with respect, with Rajasthan Full Bench is that allowing goods vehicle to be taken within the fold of proviso (ii) would introduce uncertainties in law as that would depend upon various factors to which we shall advert; the result would be that the law would cease to be certain which it has to be at least in a case of the present nature. We have said so because reference to the definition of goods vehicle shows that the first part of it does not deal with carrying of passengers. It is the second part which speaks about the same and that too when the vehicle is used for such a purpose. The word `use has been defined in Chambers English Dictionary in its intransitive sense to mean `to be accustomed; (to; used chiefly in the past tense); `to be in the habit of so doing; `to resort. Reference to the meaning of this word, as given in Blacks Law Dictionary, 5th edition, would show that even one user may amount to `use or it may be that for a thing being said to be `used, it has to be `employed habitually. 19. Being concerned with a beneficial legislation like the one at hand, we would have normally preferred liberal interpretation, but the question is whether, without any extra premium having been paid, the owner of a goods vehicle can claim indemnification from the insurer just because once in a year the goods vehicle had carried a passenger for hire or reward along with the goods. This would perhaps robe the third proviso dealing with coverage of contractual liability lame. ... xxx xxx 22. Thus, to find out whether an insurer would be liable to indemnify an owner of a goods vehicle in a case of the present nature, the mere fact that he passenger was carried for hire or reward would not be enough; it shall have to found out as to whether he was the owner, and the whether there were more than six persons in all in the good vehicle and whether the goods vehicle was being habitually used to carry passengers. The position would thus become very uncertain and would vary from case to case. Production of such result would not be conducive to the advancement of the object sought to be achieved by requiring a compulsory insurance policy. 23. There is another aspect of the matter which had led us to differ from the Full Bench decision of Rajasthan High Court. The same is what finds place in sub-section (2) of Section 95. That sub-section specifies the limits of liability and clause (a) deals with goods vehicle; and in so far as the person travelling in goods vehicle is concerned, it has confined the liability to the employees only. Thus is an indicator, and almost a sure indicator, of the fact that legislature did not have in mind carrying of either the hirer of the vehicle or his employee in the goods vehicle, otherwise, clause (a) would have provided a limit of liability regarding such persons also." Though, the conclusion was arrived at after taking into consideration the Orissa Motor Vehicle Rules, in our opinion the said view is correct, even otherwise also. In view of what we have said, the contrary view expressed by other High Courts has to be regarded as incorrect. 9. We will now consider whether the decision of this Court in Pushpabais case (supra) requires reconsideration. That was a case of a passenger travelling in a motor car. He was not travelling for hire or reward. The vehicle was neither a public service vehicle nor a goods vehicle, but it was a different class of vehicle. It was in that context that this Court made the following observation in paragraphs 21 and 22 : "... The plea that the words "third party" are wide enough to cover all persons except the person and the insurer is negatived as the insurance cover is not available to the passengers is made clear by the proviso to sub- section which provides that a policy shall not be required : "(ii) except where the vehicle is a vehicle in which passengers are carried for hire or reward or by a reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment, to cover liability in respect of the death of or bodily injury to persons being carried in or upon or entering or mounting or alighting from the vehicle at the time of the occurrence of the event out of which a claim arises.(22). Therefore it is not required that a policy of insurance should cover risk to the passengers who are not carried for hire or reward. As under section 95 the risk to a passenger in a vehicle who is not carried for hire or reward is not required to be insured the plea of the counsel for the insurance company will have to be accepted and the insurance company held not liable under the requirements of the Motor Vehicles Act."What was held in that case is, with respect, consistent with our interpretation of Section 95 as it stood before and after its Amendment by Act 56 of 1969.

Court's decision (1 = petition accepted / positive for appellant, 0 = rejected / negative): 1

Reasoning from the judgment:
1[ds](22). Therefore it is not required that a policy of insurance should cover risk to the passengers who are not carried for hire or reward. As under section 95 the risk to a passenger in a vehicle who is not carried for hire or reward is not required to be insured the plea of the counsel for the insurance company will have to be accepted and the insurance company held not liable under the requirements of the Motor Vehicles Act."What was held in that case is, with respect, consistent with our interpretation of Section 95 as it stood before and after its Amendment by Act 56 of 1969.