AMRIT LAL SOOD AND ANR. versus SMT. KAUSHALAYA DEVI THAPAR AND ORS.

Citation: [1998] 2 S.C.R. 284 · Decided: 17-03-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. PUNCHHI · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
AMRIT LAL SOOD AND ANR. 
v. 
SMT. KAUSHALA YA DEVI THAPAR AND ORS. 
)--
MARCH 17, 1998 
B 
[M.M. PUNCH! CJ., K.T. THOMAS AND M. SRINIVASAN JJ.] 
'>- -
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939-Sec 95,96-Person travelling gratuitously 
in a car injured in cw accident-Liability of insurer to pay compensation 
c 
to injured-Held-Insurer liable to pay compensation-Vehicle insurance-
Comprehensive po/icy-Indemnification clause in the policy-Construction-
No limitation regarding gratuitous passengers-Insurer agreeing to indemnify 
insured against all sums, which insured becomes liable to pay in respect of 
death or t ·dily injury to "any person"-"any person" includes person 
travelling gratuitously in a car. 
~
D 
An accident took place between a fiat car and a goods carrier. The car 
was driven by the first appellant (a brother of the second appellant). The car 
~ 
was insured with the fifth respondent (insurance company). An advocate 
travelling in the car also got injured. He filed a claim for Rs. 1,25,000 before 
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal against the owners and drivers of both 
E the vehicles as well as the insurers. The Tribunal held that the accident 
occurred due to the negligence of the car driver and passed an award of Rs. 
15,800 against the appellants and insurance Company. An appeal was 
preferred by ·the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation. The 
insurance company also preferred an appeal disputing its liability to satisfy 
the claim. Single Judge of the High Court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 
F 20,800. The appeal of the insurance company was allowed holding that since 
f-
the claimant was a gratuitous passenger travelling in the car, the insurer 
was not liable. Two Letters patent appeals were filed, one by the legal 
representatives of the claimant and another by the driver of the car (1st 
appellant). The appeal filed by the 1st appellant was dismissed, holding that 
G 
the insurer was not liabfo as the claimant was only a passenger in the 
vehicle. In the other appeal the compensation was enchanced to Rs. 56,600. 
The driver and the owner of the Car have preferred the present appeals. 
;... -
The appellants contended that the compensation awarded by the High 
Court was excessive. 
H 
Partly allowing the appeal, this Court 
284 
A.L. SOOD v. K.D. THAPAR 
285 
HELD : I. The insurance company is also liable to meet the claim of A 
the claimant and satisfy the award passed by the tribunal and modified by the 
~-'( 
High Court. The award can be enforced as against the 5th respondent 
(insurance company) also. [292-B-CI 
2. The liability of the insurer depends on the terms of the contract 
between the insured and the insurer as is evident from the policy. The B 
statutory insurance does not cover injury suffered by the occupants M the 
vehicle who are not carried for hire or reward and the insurer cannot be held 
liable under the Act. But that does not prevent an insurer from entering into 
a contract of insurance covering a risk wider than the minimum requirement 
of the statute wberby the risk to gratuitous passengers could be covered. In C 
such cases where the policy is not merely a statutory policy, the terms of 
the policy have to be considered to determine the liability of the insurer. 
[287-D-F-GJ 
2.1. In the instant case the policy is a comprehensive policy. Under Sec 
11 (a) of the Policy the insurer has agreed to indemnify the insured against D 
all sums which the insured shall become legally liable to pay in respect of 
death or bodily injury to 'any person' The expression 'any person' would 
include an occupant of the car who is gratuitously travelling in the car. The 
remaining part of the clause relates to cases of death or injury arising out 
of and in the course of employment of such person by the insured. In the E 
policy in the present case the clause for avoidance of certain terms and right 
of recovery does not enable the insurance company to resist or avoid the 
claim. [287-G-H; 289-C; 291-E-H] 
New Asiatic Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pessumal Dhanamal Aswani and F 
Ors., [ 1964] 7 S.C.R. 867, relied on. 
Madras Motor and General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Katanareddi 
Subbareddy and others (1975) A.C.J. 95; The Premier Insurance Co. Ltd. 
and others v. Sambhirang Galabsing and others, AIR (1975) Guj 133; 
Prahhudayal Agarwal v. Saraswati Bai and others, (1975) A.C.J 355, approved G 
Pushpabai Purushottam Udeshi and others, v. Mis Ranjit Ginning and 
Pressing Co. Ltd. & Ors., [1977] 2 SCC 745

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.