Case: National Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Prema Devi

The accident in the instant case took place on 1.6.1996. The claimant was travelling in a goods carriage, as a gratuitous passenger. Undisputedly she was not traveling in the goods carriage in the capacity of owner of goods or representative of owner of goods being transported in the goods carriage. This aspect was also accepted by the claimant in the claimof the appellant was that the owner of the goods carriage had not taken any policy for such passenger and there was no requirement under law for obtaining a policy for passenger.

Court's reasoning:
8. In Satpal Singhs case (supra) this Court proceeded on the footing that provisions of Section 95(1) of the old Act are in pari materia with Section 147(1) of the Act as it stood prior to the amendment in 1994.9. On a closer reading of the expressions "goods vehicle". "public service vehicle", "state carrier" and "transport vehicle" occurring in Sections 2(8), 2(25), 2(29) and 2(33) of the old Act with the corresponding provisions i.e. Section 2(14), 2(35) 2(40) and 2(47) of the Act, it is clear that there are conceptual differences.The difference in the language of "goods vehicle" as appear in the old Act and "goods carriage" in the Act is of significance. A bare reading of the provisions makes it clear that the legislative intent was to prohibit goods vehicle from carrying any passenger. This is clear from the expression "in addition to passengers" as contained in definition of "good vehicle" in the old Act. The position becomes further clear because the expression used is "good carriage" is solely for the carriage of goods. Carrying of passengers in a goods carriage is not contemplated in the Act. There is no provision similar to Clause (ii) of the proviso appended to Section 95 of the old Act prescribing requirement of insurance policy. Even Section 147 of the Act mandates compulsory coverage against death of or bodily injury to any passenger of "public service vehicle". The proviso makes it further clear that compulsory coverage in respect of drivers and conductors of public service vehicle and employees carried in goods vehicle would be limited to liability under the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 (in short WC Act"). There is no reference to any passenger in "goods carriage".14. The inevitable conclusion, therefore, is that provisions of the Act do not enjoin any statutory liability on the owner of a vehicle to get his vehicle insured for any passenger travelling in a goods carriage and the insurer would have no liability therefor.15. Our view gets support from a recent decision of a three-Judge Bench of this Court in New India Assurance Company Limited v. Asha Rani and Ors. (2002 (8) Supreme 594] in which it has been held that Satpal Singhs case (supra) was not correctly decided. That being the position, the Tribunal and the High Court were not justified in holding that the insurer had the liability to satisfy the award.16. This position was also highlighted in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Devireddy Konda Reddy and Others (2003(2) SCC 339). Subsequently also in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ajit Kumar and Others (2003(9) SCC 668), in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Baljit Kaur and Others (2004 (2) SCC 1 ) and in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Bommithi Subbhayamma and Others (2005 (12) SCC 243 ), the view in Asha Ranis case (supra) was reiterated.Above being the position, the impugned order of the High Court is not sustainable and is set aside. It is open to the claimant to recover the amount awarded from the owners of the offending vehicles.