LexNEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. versus ASHA RANI AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. v. ASHA RANI AND ORS. AUGUST 17, 2001 [A.P. MISRA AND U.C. BANERJEE, JJ.) Motor Vehicles Act, 1939/Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Prior to its amendment in 1994)-Section 95/Section 147. C Compensation-Liability of insurance company-On account of death or bodily injury of the gratuituous passengers, including owner of the goods or his representatives travelling in a goods vehicle-Interpretation of Section 95(1) (ii) of 1939 Act-Insurance company held not liable to compensate- Interpretation of Section 147 of 1988 Act in Satpal Singh's case-Insurance company held liable to compensate on the basis of deletion of clause (ii) to D proviso to Section 95(/)(b) of 1939 Act-However, the relevant provisions of the 1988 Act not placed before the Court in Satpal Singh's case-Hence, mailer referred to larger Bench. Under the Motor Vehicles Act 1939, the insurance company was not E liable to pay compensation either to the gratuitous passengers or the owners of the goods vehicle. In these appeals, the insurance company submitted that in New India Assurance Company v. Satpal Singh and Ors., 120001 l SCC 227 the insurance company was liable to pay compensation to either the owners of F the goods or his representative or the gratuitious passengers under section 147 of the 1988 Act. It also sought reference of the matter to a larger Bench as the relevant provisions of the 1988 Act were not placed before the Court in Satpal Singh's case. It submttied that mere deletion of Section 95(1) (b) proviso (ii) under the 1939 Act would make no difference to hold the liability to fall on the insurance company. G Referring the matter to larger Bench, the Court HELD: I. While interpreting Section 95(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 it was held that the insurance company was not liable to pay compensation either to the gratuitous passengers or to the owners of the I-I 686 - NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. v. ASHA RANI 687 goods. Subsequently, while interpreting Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles A Act 1988 it was held that the insurance company was liable both for the gratuitous passengers and the owners or his representative of the goods. This was based on the fact of deietion of clause (ii) of the proviso of the Section 95(1) of the 1939 Act. (696-C,. A) Mallawwa (Smt.) and Ors. v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors., B (1999) l SCC 403 and New India Assurance Company v. Satpal Singh and Ors., (2000) l SCC 227, referred to. 2. Some of the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 were not brought to the notice of the Court which have a bearing to the C conclusion arrived at in Satpal Singh's case. Firstly there is difference between the definition of 'goods vehicle' under Section 2(8) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and 'goods carriage' under section 2(14) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (prior to amendment in 1994). Under the 1939 Act the 'goods vehicle' could be used for the carriage of goods 'or in addition to passengers' while in definition of 'goods carriage' the words 'or in addition D to passengers' stand deleted meaning thereby that goods carriage cannot carry any Passenger. Secondly under Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, it would be a breach of condition in case vehicle is used for a purpose other than for which permit has been issued. Thus where a permit is issued for a 'goods carriage' it would not include passengers and in case they travel it would be contrary to the mandate of the statute and thus in view E of Section 149(2) no liability could be passed on to the insurance company. In the view of the aformentioned observations, Satpal Singh's case requires reconsideration, by a larger Bench. (698-B-E( Mallawwa (Smt.) and Ors. v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors., (1999( l SCC 403, distinguished. New India Assurance Company v. Satpal Singh and Ors., (2000) I SCC 227; National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Dundamma, (1992) ACJ I; Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. lrawwa and Ors., AIR (1992) Kant 321; Santra Bai and Ors. v. Prahlad and Ors., (1985) ACJ 762; New India Assurnace G Company Ltd. v. Kanchan Bewa and Ors., II (1994) ACC 117 and Pushpabi Purshottam Udeshi and Ors. v. Mis. Ran) it Ginning and Pressing Co. (P) Ltd. and Anr., (19771 2 SCC 745, referred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5385 of m1. H 688 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. I S.C.R. A From the Judgment and Order dated 10.5.20
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.