LexM/S. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. versus BALJIT KAUR AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A MIS. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. T' V. BALJIT KAUR AND ORS. JANUARY 6, 2004 B [V.N. KHARE, CJ, S.B. SINHA AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.] }' ; Motor Vehicles Act, 1988-Seciion 147 (as amended in 1994) and Section c 168-lnsurance policy in respect of goods vehicle-Liability of insurer with respect to gratuitous passengers-Held: By amendment in 1994 to Section 147 intention of the legislature was not to provide for liability of insurer with respect to gratuitous passenger-A/so this was neither contemplated at the time contract of insurance was entered into, nor premium was paid to that extent-Hence the owner of the vehicle-insured liable. D Interpretation of statutes: Rule of-Court of law should avoid interpretation that would negate true import or render the words of any provision as superfluous. E Mischief Rule-Doctrine of suppression-Applicability of-Discussed The question which arose for consideration in these appeals was whether an insurance policy in respect of a goods vehicle would also cover gratuitous passengers, in view of the legislative amendment in 1994 to Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 inserting words "injury to F any person, including owner of the goods or his authorized representative carried in the vehicle". _.. Son of Respondent No. I was travelling in a goods vehicle insured with the appellant-insurance company. He died in an accident as a result G of rash and negligent driving by respondent No. 2-driver of the vehicle in 1999. Respondent No.I filed claim petition for compensation. Appellant contended that it was not liable with respect to passengers transported in goods vehicle. Tribunal relying upon the .ratio in Satpal Singh 's case that insurance policy covering third party risk does not exclude gratuitous y· passengers in any type or class of vehicle, granted compensation. High H 274 NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. 1·. BALJIT KAUR 275 Court upheld the order and further directed that if respondent No. 3- A owner committed any breach, insurer could recover the compensation from him. Respondent No. 2-driver and respondent No. 3-owner of the vehicle contended that in Asha Rani's case and Konda Reddy 's case which . overruled Satpal Singh 's case, the effect of the legislative amendment in B 1994 to Section 147 was not in question as they dealt with the position .fi prevailing prior to the amendment of Section 147; therefore, the law laid down by these decisions that insurer would not be liable to gratuitous passenger traveling in goods vehicle would not be considered as binding law; that since the accident occurred in 1999, this Court would c.onsider C afresh the impact to the 1994 amendment; and that the insertion of words "including owner of the goods or his authorized representative carried in ) the vehicle" in Section 147 would result in the inference that gratuitous passengers would be covered by the scope of the pro.vision and any other construction would render the effect of the words "any person" as completely redundant. D Partly allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: I.I. By reason of the 1994 Amendment to Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 "including the owner of the goods or his authorized representative carried in the vehicle" was added. The liability E of the owner of the vehicle to insure it compulsorily, thus, by reason of the amendment only the owner of the goods or his authorized representative carried in the vehicle besides the third parties would now be covered by the policy of insurance in respect of a goods vehicli;. The intention of the Parliament, therefore, could not have been that the words 'any person' occurring in Section 147 would cover all persons who were traveling in a goods carriage in any capacity whatsoever, especially gratuitous passengers, who were neither contemplated at the time the contract of insurance was entered into, nor any premium was paid to the extent of the benefit of insurance to such category of people. If such was F the intention .there was no necessity for the Parliament to carry out an G amendment inasmuch as the expression 'any person' contained in sub- ~ . clause (i) of clause (b) of sub-section (I) of Section 147 would have included 1 ~ the owner of the goods or his authorized representative besides the passengers who are gratuitous or otherwise. It cannot be accepted that the words "any person" as used in Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, H
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.