SMT. THOKCHOM ONGBI SANGEETA@ SANGI DEVI AND ANR. versus ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 11 S.C.R. 609 · Decided: 23-10-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

y 
SMT. THOKCHOM ONGBI SANGEETA@ SANGI DEVI AND 
A 
ANR. 
v. 
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 23, 2007 
{DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM,~J.] 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; Proviso to Section 147/Moto(Vehicles 
Act, 1939; Section 95: 
·Third Party riskS~Goods ·vehide-Liability 'of Insur~r.nffel(;f: 
B 
·1 
c 
') 
' Though Section -1'4 7 'of 1988 "Act makes conipulsory inilirant:e 
dover age against death/bodily injury to' any passenger of pub'lic 
_carriage but thereri~ fzo reference of such coverage to any passenger D 
in goods carriage-Provisions under both the Acts makes it clear that ( 
legislative intent' was to prohibit goods vehicles from carrying any 
' 
. 
~ 
. 
. 
'passengers__;Provisions under the 1988 Act do' not enjoin any statiito'ry 
llability on ~he owner of a goods carriage to get his vehicle iiisured 
for any passenger traveling in agoods carriage and the' insurer would 
·incur no liability therefor-Hdwever, the matter remitted tdHigh;Court E 
'-for the limitedpurpose of fixing the·responsibility of thepersori'who 
is to-SatisfY the 'award made by the Tribunal. 
i ,, ~ :-
1:.,.. 
· A Tata ,Truck whi.Je procee4ing towards Mizoram met wit~ an 
accident. Two claim cases were filed before the Motor Accident F 
•' 
~ . . 
' 
'* 
' 
... 
. Claims Tribunal, Manipur under Motor Vehicles Ac~, 1988. 1r.~e 
. tribunal vide its common judgment and award _awarded cery;ain 
amount of compensation in both the case.s. Insurer filed app~_~ls 
thereagainst, w~ich were allo~ed. by the High Court. Hen.~~J~e 
'present appeals.. 
. . .- , . ··Ji , • , 
, 
;~1r~ ·n;;1 ···m 1) 
G 
Appellant contended that the High CoGif<Jii.gift t~:ha~e d.ireeted ' · 
the insurer to pay and1recover·the'a1m'bu:nt:(rom the insured. 
·· 
Disposing·ofthe1ap
1peal§~'the-Court .. 'L"" ,:· 1\1\ 1i•i>\ .. ·1\ \ 
\ • 
·, ., ' 
U'!Of "")') 
. .-, ;•' ll" 
_r,\Jf'5\\\l_}··-~.'t•l;\\~i.\" 
\·\~~'.16Q9f1iG\:!•1 
d,; .. tJ'·~-J-~lf. 
,\, 
H 
.r11, !.i·J:_i.,, ,t\:'U[ )I. 1.0::1}1}S, Id?.. ; • ' i· -1 ·;w•',, 1 .i 
> l 
610 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 11 S.C.R. 
A 
HELD: 1.1. Third party risks in the background of vehicles 
which are subject-matter ofinsurance are dealt with in Chapter VIII 
of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and Chapter XI of the Motor 
Vehicles Act, 1988. Proviso to Section 147 of the 1988 Act needs to 
be juxtaposed with Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. 
B 
[Para 8) [612-E] 
1.2. It is of significance that proviso appended to Section 95 of 
the 1939 Act contained in clause (ii) does not find place in the 1988 
Act. [Para 8) (613-B] 
C 
1.3. The difference in the language of "goods vehicle" as 
· appearing in the Old Act and "goods carriage" in the new Act is of 
significance. A bare reading of the provisions makes it clear that 
the legislative intent was to prohibit goods vehicle from carrying any 
passenger. This is clear from the expression "in addition to 
D passengers" as contained in definition of"goods vehicle" in the Old 
act. The position becomes further clear because the expression used 
is "goods carriage" is solely for the "carriage of goods". Carrying 
of passengers in a goods carriage is not contemplated in the Act. 
There is no provision similar to clause (ii) of the proviso appended 
E to Section 95 of the Old Act prescribing requirement of insurance 
policy. Even Section 147 of the Act mandates compulsory coverage 
against death of or bodily injury to any passenger of"public service 
vehicle". The proviso makes it further clear that compulsory 
coverage in respect of drivers and conductors of public service 
vehicle and employees carried in goods vehicle would be limited to 
F liability under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. 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 traveling in a goods carriage and the ins· ... erwould 
G have no liability therefor. 
[Paras 9, 10 and 12) (613-D, E, r 
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd v. Deviredd• 
Ors., AIR (2003) SC 1009 and National lnsura1 
H Ajit Kumar & Ors., AIR (2003) SC 3093, relir 
Y, 
I== 
I 
f 
.,, 
THOKCHOM ON GB I SANGEET A@SANGI DEVI v. 
611 
ORIENT AL INSURANCE CO. LTD. [PASAYAT,J.] 
r 
2. The question that ought to have been dealt with by the High A 
Court was the person who had the liability to pay the amount as 
compensation as awarded by the

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