SRI PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWAL AND ORS. versus SMT. MUSHTARI BEGUM AND ORS.

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 613 · Decided: 18-08-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Leave Granted & Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

SRI PRAMOD KUMAR AGRA WAL AND ORS. 
V. 
SMT. MUS HT ARI BEGUM AND ORS. 
AUGUST 18, 2004 
[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND C.K. THAKKER, JJ.] 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; Section 166 with Amended Act, 1994; 
Section 14 7 : 
A 
B 
Goods Vehicle-Accident-Death of a passenger-Claim Petition- C 
Liability of insurer to passengers in the vehicle-Motor Accident Claims 
Tribunal awarded compensation holding that owner liable to make payment 
of compensation to claimant and not the insurer since the vehicle was not 
insured for passengers-Affirmed by High Court-On appeal, Held : 
Courts below rightly held that insurer not liable to indemnifY the award D 
in terms of Section 147 of the Amended Act-However, the insurer has to 
pay the amount of compensation to claimants subject to condition that the 
owner has to furnish security for the entire amount and also to attach the 
offending vehicle as a part of security-However, the insurer could recover 
the said amount ji·om the owner by initiating a proceeding before E 
Executing Court-Executing Court has to pass order as to the manner of 
recovery of the amount from the owner-Jn case of default, it could be 
realized by disposing of the security/property of the owner-Directions 
issued. 
Truck of appellant No. I allegedly carrying passengers met with F 
an accident due to rash and negligent driving by appellant No. 2, 
driver. One of the passengers, sustained injuries and subsequently 
died. A claim petition was filed by respondent-claimant. Motor Vehicles 
Claims Tribunal awarded certain amount as compensation to be paid 
by the owner observing that since the vehicle was a goods vehicle and G 
owner had not insured it for carrying passengers, insurer was not liable 
for making payment of compensation to claimants. The order was 
affirmed by the High Court. Hence the present appeal. 
It was contended for the appellant that the insurer is liable to H 
613 
614 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2004] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A indemnify the award in terms of Section 147 of the Amended Motor 
Vehicles Act. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
B 
HELD : The plea of the appellants has been rightly rejected both 
by the Tribunal and the High Court. The insurer shall pay the 
quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal, about which there 
was no dispute raised, to the respondents-claimants. For the purpose 
ofrecovering the same from the owner the insurer shall not be required 
to file a suit. It may initiate a proceeding before the concerned 
C Executing Court as if the dispute between the insurer and the owner 
was the subject matter of determination before the Tribunal and the 
issue is decided against the owner and in favour of the insurer. Before 
release of the amount to the claimants, owner of the vehicle-appellant 
No. 1 shall furnish security for the entire amount which the insurer will 
D pay to the claimants. The offending vehicle shall be attached, as a part 
of the security. If necessity arises the Executing Court shall take 
assistance of the concerned Regional Transport Authority. The 
Executing Court shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law 
as to the manner in which the owner of the vehicle shall make payment 
E to the insurer. In case there is any default it shall be open to the 
Exe~uting Court to direct realization by disposal of the securities to 
be furnished or from any other property or properties of the owner 
of the vehicle, the insured. [618-C-GJ 
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Balj"it Kaur & Ors., [2004] 2 SCC 1, 
F relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5287 of 
2004. 
G 
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.8.200 I of the Allahabad High 
Court in F.A.O. No. 1363 of 2001. 
L.K. Garg and Balraj Dewan for the Appellants. 
Arvendra Singh, J.M. Khanna, Vishnu Mehra and B.K. Satija for the 
H Respondents. 
P.K. AGRAWAL v. MUSHTARI BEGUM [PASAYAT, J.] 
615 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
A 
ARIJIT P ASAY AT, J.: Leave granted. 
Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of 
the Allahabad High Court which did not find any error in the judgment B 
of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bijnor (in short the 'Tribunal') 
either on facts or law to warrant interference. 
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: 
The present respondents I to I 0 filed a Claim Petition in terms of C 
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short the 'Act') claiming 
compensation from the present appellants and United India Insurance 
Compan
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.