LexNEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. versus ASHA RANI AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.
V.
ASHA RANI AND ORS.
DECEMBER 3, 2002
[G.B. PATTANAIK, CJ. AND H.K. SEMA, S.B. SINHA, JJ.]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (prior to Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act
1994)-Section 147-Motor Accident-Compensation-Liability of insurer
A
B
to pay-To dependents of deceased passenger travelling in Stage carriage- C
Held, insurer not liable to pay compensation in such a case-Motor Vehicles
Act, 1939-Section 95.
Words and Phrases-"any person "-Meaning of in the context of Section
147 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (prior to Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act,
lW~
D
The question for consideration in the present appeals was whether the
insurer is liable to pay compensation to the dependents of the deceased
passenger, while the deceased passenger was travelling in a goods carriage
which met with an accident.
Motor Accident Tribunal held that the insurer was liable to pay
compensation. In appeal High Court disposed of the appeals solely on the
ground that the case was covered by Satpal Singh 's case.
E
The appeals fall in three categories i.e. (I) cases covered by Motor
Vehicles Act, 1939; (2) cases covered by Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 prior to F
amendment of 1994 (3) cases covered by Motor Vehicles Act after amendment
of 1994.
Division Bench of this Court decided the cases under category {I) and
(3) but referred the cases under category (2) to larger Bench as the Court
felt that Satpal Singh 's case required reconsideration.
G
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: Per Pattanaik, CJI (for himself and Serna, J.)
I. Insurer will not be liable to pay compensation to the owner of goods H
543
544
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
A or his authorized representative on being carried in a goods vehicle when
that vehicle meets with an accident and the owner of goods or his
representative dies or suffers any bodily injury. 1545-B, q
2. If the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act 1994 is examined?
particularly Section 46 by which expression 'injury to any person' in the
B original Act stood substituted by the expression 'injury to any person including
owner of the goods or his authorized representative carried in the vehicle'
the conclusion is irresistible that prior to the aforesaid amendment Act of
1994, even if widest interpretation is given to the expression 'to any person'
it will not cover either the owner of the goods or his authorized representative
C being carried in the vehicle. The objects and reasons of clause 46 also states
that it seeks to amend Section 147 to include owner of the goods or his
authorized representative carried in the vehicle for the purposes of liability
under the Insurance Policy. It is no doubt true that sometimes the legislature
amends the law by way of amplification and clarification of an inherent position
which is there in the statute, but a plain meaning being given to the words
D used in the statute, as it stood prior to its amendment of 1994, and as it stands
subsequent to its amendment in 1994 and bearing in mind the objects and
reasons engrafted in the amended provisions, it cannot be construed that the
expression 'including owner of the goods or his authorized representative
carried in the vehicle' which was added to the pre-existed expression 'injury
E to any person' is either clarificatory or amplification of the pre-existing statute.
On the other hand it clearly dt·monstrates that the legislature wanted to bring
within the sweep of Section 147 and making it compulsory for the insurer to
insure even in case of a goods vehicle, the owner of the goods or his authorized
representative being carried in a goods vehicle when that vehicle met with an
accident and the owner of the goods or his representative either dies or suffers
F bodily injury. 1553-D-H; 554-A)
New India Assurance Company v. Sat Pal singh and Ors., 1200011 SCC
237, overruled.
Mallawwa (Smt.) and Ors. v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd and Ors., (1999)
G 1 sec 403, distinguished.
H
Pushpabai Purshottam Udeshi and Ors. v. A1/s. Ranjit Ginning and
Pressing Co. (P) Ltd and Anr., 119771 2 SCC 745, referred to.
Per Sinha, J. [Supplementing!
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO_ LTD. 1·. ASHA RANI
545
I. In view of the changes in the relevant provisions in 1988 vis-a-vis A
1939 Act t~e meaning of the words '"any person" must also be attributed
having regard to the context in which they have been used i.e. 'a third party'.
Keeping in view the provisions of 1988 ActExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.