NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY versus SHRI SATPAL SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [1999] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 149 · Decided: 02-12-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.T. THOMAS · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

/
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY 
A 
v. 
SHRI SATPAL SINGH AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 2, I 999 
[K.T. THOMAS AND M.B. SHAH, JJ.] 
B 
Motor Vehicles Act 1988-Section 147-Compensation for death-
Victim a gratuitous passenger-Claim under new Act-Whether Insurance 
Company liable-Held, Yes-third party risk includes gratuitious passenger- C 
Decision rendered under old Act not applicable-Motor Vehicles Act, 1939-
s.95. 
Respondents made a joint claim before the Motor Accident Claims 
Tribunal claiming compensation for the accidental death of a girl child of 10 
years while travelling in a truck, under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The D 
Tribunal passed an award for Rs. 25,000 and directed the Appellant to pay 
the amount with interest as the vehicle was covered under their Policy. 
Appellant filed an appeal before the High Court disputing their liability 
to pay the compensation since the deceased was a gratuitous passenger. The 
Respondents appealed for enhancement of compensation. The High Court E 
dismissed the appeal by the appellant company and allowed the Respondent's 
appeal by doubling the compensation amount 
In appeal to this Court, the appellant Company relying on the Judgment 
in Ma//awwa and Ors. v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.* disputed its 
liability to pay compensation on the premise that the victim was a gratuitous F 
passenger in the vehicle. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD : 1. The decision in Mal/awwa & Ors. was rendered under Section 
95 of the Old Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The aforesaid provision contained a G 
rider in clause (ii) of the proviso to sub-section (i) which is absent in the 
corresponding provision in the new Act Under the new Act an insurance policy 
covering third party risk is not required to exclude gratuitous passengers in 
*(19911 1 sec 403. 
149 
H 
150 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A a vehicle, no matter that the vehicle is of any type or class. Hence the decisions 
rendered under the old act vis-a-vis gratuitous passengers are of no avail while 
considering the liability of the insurance company in respect of any accident 
which occurred or would occur after the new Act came into force. 
(151-C; 154-D-E] 
B 
Pushpabai Parshottam Udeshi & Ors. v. Mis Ranjit Ginning & Pressing 
Co. Pvt. Ltd. and Anr., AIR (1977) SC 1735 = (1977] 2 SCC 745 and 
Mallawwa and Ors. v. Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd. & Ors., (1999] 1 SCC 403, 
distinguished. 
C 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 6926-27 of 
1999. 
D 
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.7.99 of the Himachal Pradesh 
High Court in F.A.0. No. 11 and 44of:1992. 
S.N. Gupta, J.S. Attari and Alok Kr. Sharma for the Appellant. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
THOMAS, J. Leave granted. 
A 10 year old girl met with her death in a truck accident. Her name was 
E Dupinder Kaur. The accident occurred while she was travelling in the truck 
on 11.3.1990. She died on the spot. Her father, brother artd sister made a joint 
claim for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the 
'new Act'). The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal before which the claim was 
made passed an award in a sum of Rs. 25,000 to the claimants. The owner of 
F the truck was found liable to pay the compensation amount. Mis. New India 
Assurance Company, the insurer had been directed to make the amount good 
with interest, as the vehicle was then covered by an insurance policy issued 
by that company. 
The claimants as well as the Insurance Company challenged the said 
G award. The former was dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded. 
The Insurance Company was aggrieved as the liability was imposed on them. 
The Insurance Company put forward a contention that the deceased Dupinder 
Kaur was a gratuitous passenger in the truck and hence no liability can be 
fastened with the insurer, but that contention was repelled. 
H 
A Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the 
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY v. SATPAL SINGH rrnoMAS, J .] 
151 
Insurance Company but allowed the other appeal by doubling the A 
compensation amount. Hence this appeal by special leave at the instance of 
the Insurance Company. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant we 
felt that it is not necessary to send notice to the respondents to contest the 
appeal as there is no scope for absolving the Insurance Company from 
liability. 
Learned counsel for the appellant banked on the decision of a three 
Judge Bench this Court i
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.