THE GENERAL MANAGER, UNITED INSURANCE CO. LTD. versus M. LAXMI AND ORS.

Citation: [2008] 16 S.C.R. 49 · Decided: 14-11-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 16 S.C.R. 49 
THE GENERAL MANAGER, UNITED 
A 
INSURANCE CO. LTD. 
v. 
M. LAXMI AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 6659 of 2008) 
NOVEMBER 14, 2008 
B 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM 
SHARMA, JJ.] 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988- s.166- Gratuitous passenger c 
- Liability of insurer - Scooter met with accident - Death of 
the pillion rider - Claim for compensation by legal heirs of 
deceased -
Liability of insurance company to pay 
compensation - Held: Not liable, as the insurance policy 
was a statutory policy and did not cover the risk of death of D 
a gratuitous passenger. 
The scooter insured with Appellant-Insurance 
company met with an accident resulting in death of the 
pillion rider. Respondents, the legal heirs of the E 
deceased, filed a claim for compensation from the 
appellant. Inasmuch as the insurance policy in question 
was an Act policy and not comprehensive, the MACT held 
,,.,, 
that the Respondents could claim compensation from 
owner of the scooter i.e. the insured but not from the. F 
Appellant. The High Court set aside the order of MACT 
. holding that Appellant was liable to pay compensation. 
Hence the present appeal. 
Disposing of the appeal and restoring the order of 
the MACT, the Court 
G 
HELD: Tha Appellant-insurance company owed no 
liability towards the deceased pillion rider, as the 
insurance policy was a statutory policy, and hence it did 
49 
H 
50 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2008] 16 S.C.R. 
A not cover the risk of death of or bodily injury to a 
gratuitous passenger. [Para 8] [53-D-E] 
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani and Ors. 
(2003 (2) SCC 223) and United India Assurance Co. Ltd. 
B Shim/a v. Tilak Singh and Ors. (2006 (4) SCC 404), relied 
on 
c 
Case Law Reference: 
(2003 (2) sec 223) 
(2006 (41 sec 404) 
relied on 
relied on 
Para 7 
Para 8 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
6659 of 2008. 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 19.03.2004 of 
D the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in CMA No. 
2512 of 1999. 
E 
" 
Sakshi Mittal and B.K. Satija for the Appellant. 
i 
K. Sarada Devi for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.1. Leave granted. 
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned 
F Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court allowing the 
appeal filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 3. 
3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: 
G 
One Ramulu (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') 
died in a vehicular accident on 8.10.1996. Respondents 1 to 
< 
H 
3 are his widow, son and father respectively. A claim petition 
was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 
(in short 'the Act') claiming compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/-. The 
claimants averred in the claim petition that the deceased and 
GENERAL MANAGER, UNITED INSURANCE CO. v. M. 
51 
LAXMI AND ORS. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] 
one Mohd. Mohsin were going on a scooter belonging to M. 
A 
Yadireddy, respondent no.4 in the present appeal. The scooter 
was being driven by Mohd. Mohsin. At about 7.00 p.m. the 
scooter hit a bullock cart which was going in the same direction 
because of rash and negligent driving of the scooter, the 
;., 
deceased fell down and sustained fatal injuries. At the time of B 
his death, he was 29 years of age. Compensation was claimed 
from the owner of the scooter. Present appellant was the insurer 
which had insured the vehicle in question. The insured 
remained ex-parte. The present appellant filed its counter-
affidavit denying all the material allegations. It was pointed out c 
that admittedly, the policy of insurance was an Act policy and 
the deceased was a pillion rider and also gratuitous passenger 
and hence, not a third party, and he cannot claim compensation 
from the insurance company which insured the vehicle. The 
learned Additional Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases-
D 
cum-V Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad 
(hereinafter referred to as 'MACT') who adjudicated the claim 
petition, held that the policy was an Act policy in respect of the 
Scooter on the date of accident, therefore, the insurer had no 
liability. It was categorically held that unless the policy in E 
question covers even a gratuitous passenger, such person, who 
met with an accident while going in the vehicle in question and 
received injuries or his legal heirs, in case of his death following 
... 
such accident, cannot proceed against the concerned 
insurance company for any compensation

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