NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. versus VEDWATI AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 2 S.C.R. 918 · Decided: 20-02-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

·A 
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. 
i 
"I 
v. 
'' 
VEDWA Tl AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 20, 2007 
B 
[DK ARITIT PASA YAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: 
)-
-. 
c 
ss. 2(14), 2(35), 2(40) and 22(47)-"Goods carriage" -Tractor-
Carrying a passenger-Accident-Death of passenger-Claim by dependents 
from Insurance Company-Held, provisions of the Act do not enjoin any 
statutory liability on the owner to get his vehicle ensured for any passenger 
• 
travelling in .a goods carriage, and insurer would have no liability therefor-
Motor Vehicles Act, 1935-ss. 2(8), 2(55), 2(29) and 2(33). 
D 
A tractor carrying a passenger met with an accident and, as a result, 
the passenger died. The dependents filed a claim petition and the Motor 
-'1 
Accident Claims Tribunal relying on Satpal Singh 's case* held the insurer 
liable to pay the compensation. After unsuccessfully challenging the award 
..... 
before the High Court, the insurer filed the present appeals. 
E 
Allowi11g the appeals, the Court 
HELD:l.l. The present case is covered by the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 
The difference in the language of "goods vehicle" as appearing in s. 2(8) of 
F 
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1935 and "goods carriage" in s.2(14) of the Motor 
+-
Vehicles Act, 1988 is of significance. A bare reading of the provisions niakes 
.. 
it clear that the legislative intent was to prohibit goods vehicle from carrying 
any passenger. This is clear from the expression "in addition to passengers" 
as contained in definition of "good vehicle" in the old Act. The position 
becomes further clear because the expression used is "good carriage" is 
G solely for the carriage of goods. Carrying of passengers in a goods carriage 
is not contemplated in the Act. There is no reference to any passenger in 
-
"goods carriage". The inevitable conclusion, therefore, is that provisions of 
'::-~ .... 
the Act do not enjoin any statutory liability on the owner of a vehicle to get 
his vehicle insured for any passenger travelling in a goods carriage and the 
H 
918 
-
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. v. VEDWATI [PASAYAT, J.] 919 
r 
insurer would have no liability therefor. (Para 7, 13, 14) [920-H; 923-A-D) A 
' _, 
•· 
-- -.\' 
1.2. In Asha Rani's case** it has been held that Satpal Singh's case 
was not correctly decided. That being the position, the Tribunal and the High 
Court were not justified in holding that the insurer had the liability to satisfy 
the award. The impugned order of the High Court is not sustainable and is 
accordingly set aside. (Para 15-17) (923-E-G) 
B 
*New India Assurance Company v. Satpal Singh & Ors., (2000) l SCC 
237, stands overruled. 
**New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Asha Rani and Ors., (2002) 8 C 
Supreme 594; Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Devireddy Kanda Reddy and 
Ors., (2003) 2 SCC 339'; National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ajit Kumar and Ors., 
(201>3) 9 SCC 6682; National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Baljit Kaur and Ors., 
(2004) 2 SCC P and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Bommithi Subbhayamma 
and Ors., [2005) 12 SCC 243, relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 860 of2007. 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 29.11.2001 of the High Court 
of Judicature at Allahabad in F.A. from Order No. 1773/2001. 
WITH 
C.A. No 861 of2007. 
A.K. Raina, R.K. Bhartiya and Anil Kumar Jha for the Appellant. 
K.K. Mohan and K.N. Rai for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. I. Leave granted. 
D 
E 
F 
2. Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment rendered by a Division 
Bench of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant G 
(hereinafter referred to as the 'Insurer'). By the impugned judgment the High 
I. 
[2003) I SCR 537. 
2. 
[2003] 3 Supp. SCR 321. 
3. 
[2004] I SCR 274. 
H 
920 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2007) 2 S.C.R. 
A Court held that the respondent Nos. I to 6 (hereinafter referred to as the 
'Claimants') were entitled to compensation and that the same was to be paid 
"i 
by the insurer; 
3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: 
B 
A Claim.Petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 
1988 (in short the 'Act') claiming compensation with the allegation that Paras 
Ram Agnihotri (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') was returning from 
his village Gokhia from Atarra in tractor No.MP 16A/2637 after delivering 
certain goods there. The tractor overturned due to rash and negligent driving 
C by the driver, with the result the decease

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