RAMASHRAY SINGH versus NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 666 · Decided: 22-07-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RUMA PAL · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
RAMASHRA Y SINGH 
v. 
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD. AND ORS. 
JULY 22, 2003 
B 
(RUMA PAL AND 8.N. SRIKRISHNA, JJ.J 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; Ss. 145, 146 and 147: 
Insurance policy in respect of a passenger carrier against third party 
C risk-Khalasi died when the vehicle met with an accident-legal heirs of the 
deceased filed a claim-labour Court held the insurance company liable to 
pay compensation under the insurance policy-Reversed by the High Court-
Liability of the insurer lo persons in employment of the insured-Extent a/-
Held: An insurance policy does not cover liability of insurer in respect of 
D death/injury to any employee of the insured arising out of and in the course 
of employment unless the liability of insured arises und"'° the Workmen's 
Compensation Act or the employee is a driver of the vehicle/conductor/ ticket 
examiner of public transport vehicle-Insured could cover other employees 
as well in the policy by entering into an agreement with the insurer and 
paying additional premium-Since deceased was a Kha/asi and not a 
E conductor/passenger nor Insured had paid any additional premium to cover 
risk of conductor/other employee, the claim is unsustainable-Workmen's 
Compensation Act-Motor Vehicles Act, 1935; Section 95. 
Words and Phrases: 
F 
'any person', 'any passenger' 'comprehensive policy'-Meaning of in 
the context of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 
Appellant, owner of a passenger carrier, insured the vehicle and was 
paying premium to the respondent-insurance company on the basis of "13 
G passengers+ I". He had employed a Khalasi. The vehicle met with an accident 
and the Khalasi died. Legal heirs of the deceased employee filed a claim 
against the appellant and the insurance company. The Workmen's 
Compensation Court held the insurance company liable to pay compensation 
since accident occurred during the continuance of insurance policy. Insurance 
company challenged the order. High Court reversed the order. Hence the 
H 
666 
RAMASMRAY SINGM v. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD. 
667 
present appeal filed by the aggrieved insured. 
It was contendCd for the appellant that the insurance policy expressly 
covered the death/injury to the Khalasi; and that since premium was paid in 
respect of Khalasi also, Insurer was liable to pay compensation. 
A 
On behalf of the respondent, it was submitted that since additional B 
premium to cover risk to a Khalasi was not paid by the appellant, Insurer was 
not liable to pay; and that no employee of the Insured except driver was covered 
under the insurance policy. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The phrases 'any person' and 'any passenger' in clauses (i) 
and (ii) of sub section (b) to Section 147(1) of the Act are of wide amplitude. 
However, the proviso to the sub-section carves out an exception in respect of 
c 
one class of persons and passengers, namely, employees of the insured. This 
would still allow the insured to enter into an agreement to cover other D 
employees, but under the proviso to Section 147 (l)(b), it is clear that for the 
purposes of Section 146(1 ), a policy shall not be required to cover liability in 
respect of the death arising out of and in the course of any employment of the 
person insured unless the liability of the insured arises under the Workmen's 
Compensation Act, and if the employee is engaged in driving the vehicle and 
if it is a public service vehicle, is engaged as conductor of the vehicle or in E 
examining tickets on the vehicle. If the concerned employee is neither a driver 
nor conductor nor examiner of tickets, the insured cannot claim that the 
employee would come under the description of "any person" or "passenger". 
If this were permissible, then there would be no need to make special 
provisions for employees of the insured.1671-D-G) 
New India Assurance Company v. Satpal Singh and Ors., 1200011 SCC 
237, relied on. 
F 
1.2. The mere mention of the word "cleaner" while describing the 
seating capacity of the vehicle does not mean that the cleaner was a passenger. 
Besides the claim of the deceased employee was adjudicated upon by the G 
Workmen's Compensation Court which could have assumed jurisdiction and 
passed an order directing compensation only on the basis that the deceased 
was an employee. This order cannot then be enforced on the basis that the 
deceased was a passenger. 1671-H; 672-A) 
H 
A 
B 
668 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003) SUPP. I S.C.R. 
1.3. A person carried in pursuance of 

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