NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. versus V. CHINNAMMA AND ORS.

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 898 · Decided: 25-08-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N. SANTOSH HEGDE · Disposal: Leave Granted & Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. 
v. 
V. CHINNAMMA AND ORS. 
AUGUST 25, 2004 
[N. SANTOSH HEGDE, S.B. SINHA AND A.K. MATHUR, JJ.] 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: 
Section 147(1) (as amended by Act 54of1994)-Compensation-To 
a person in goods vehicle-As owner of the goods-Liability of Insurance 
companrHeld: Insurance company not liable to pay compensation to the 
owner of the goods when, being carried in a goods vehicle, the accident 
occurred. 
Words & Phrases: 
"Goods carriage "-Meaning of-In the context of Section 2(14) of 
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 
The deceased used to carry on business in vegetables and loaded 
some bags of the same in a trailer of a tractor and was travelling 
therein. The tractor was being driven at a very high speed as a result 
of which the deceased fell down and died. 
The Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal allowed the 
claim petition filed by the respondents-legal heirs of the deceased on 
the ground that carrying of goods, i.e., vegetables, by the deceased as 
owner thereof would entitle the respondents to receive compensation 
from the appellant-corroration. The High Court dismissed the appeal 
preferred by the appellant. Hence the appeal. 
On behalf of the appellant, it was contended that the appellant 
would not be liable for paying compensation to a passenger in a goods 
vehicle in which he was travelling as owner of the goods when that 
h 
·1ehicle met with an accident. 
On behalf of the respondents, it was contended that a tractor is 
not a 'goods carriage' vehicle and as carrying of vegetables in a tractor 
898 
\ ,,_
t 
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. V. CHINNAMMA 
899 
would be for agricultural purposes, the appellant could not be absolved A 
from its liability to pay the amount of compensation. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I. An insurance for an owner of the goods or his B 
authorized representative travelling in a vehicle became compulsory 
only with effoct from I 4-I I-I 994 i.e., from the date of coming into force 
of Amending Act 54 of 1994. [905-C-D] 
2. A tractor is not even a goods carriage. A tractor fitted with a C 
trailer may or may not answer the definition of goods carriage contained 
in section 2(14) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The tractor was meant 
to be used for agricultural purposes. The trailer.attached to the tractor, 
thus, necessarily is required to be used for agricultural purposes, unless 
registered otherwise. It may be that carriage of vegetables being 
agricultural produce would lead to an inference that the tractor was D 
being used for agricultural purposes but the same by itself would not 
be construed to mean that the tractor and trailer can be used for 
carriage of goods by another person for bis business activities. The 
deceased was a businessman. He used to deal in vegetables. After he 
purchased the vegetables, he was to transport the same to a market E 
for the purpose of sale thereof and not for any agricultural purposes. 
The tractor and trailer, therefore, were not being used for agricultural 
purposes. However, even if it be assumed that the trailer would answer 
the description of"goods carriage" as contained in section 2(14) of the 
Act, the case would be covered by the decision of this Court Asha Rani F 
case and other decisions following the same, as the accident had taken 
place on 24.11.1991, i.e., much prior to the coming into force of the 
1994 amendment. (905-D, F-H; 906-A-B] 
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani, [2003) 2 SCC 223; 
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Devireddy Konda Reddy, [2003) 2 sec G 
339; National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Anil Kumar, JT (2003) 7 520 and 
, .. 
' 
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Baljit Kaur, (2004) 2 SCC I, relied on. 
-\ 
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Satpal Singh, [2000) 1 SCC 237, 
referred to. 
H 
900 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
)
A 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5428 of 
2004 . 
.from the Judgment and Order dated 28.3.2002 of the Andhra Pradesh 
High Court in Appeal Against Order No. 216 of 1997. 
B 
P.K. Seth, Sudhir Kumar Gupta and Anurag Pandey for the Appellant. 
Mrs. K. Sharda Devi for the Respondents. 
c 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
S.B. SINHA, J. : Leave granted. 
The Appellant-Insurance Company aggrieved by and dissatisfied with 
• 
D 
a judgment and order dated 28th March, 2002 passed by the High Court 
of Judicature Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in AAO No. 216 of 1996 is 
in appeal before us. 
The respondents her

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