LexTMT. NOORJAHAN versus TMT. SULTAN RAJIA @THAJU AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
•
TMT. NOORJAHAN.
v.
TMT. SULTAN RAJIA @THAJU AND ORS.
NOVEMBER 5, 1996
[A.M. AHMADI, CJ. AND S.C. SEN, J.]
A
B
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939-Sections 95 (2){b)(ii) and 95(l)(b)(ii)
proviso (ii)-Passenger-Liability of insurance company-Public carrier
carrying passenger for hire or reward pursuant to contract of employment-
Personal injury causing death to a person while alighting from the vehicle- C
Held, victim was a passenger-Awarded Compensation of Rs.92,000-
Liability of insurance company limited to only Rs. 10, 000.
Vicarious Liability-Motor accident-Deceased was a passenger-
The acts of the driver leading to accident-Claim for compensation-Held,
owner of the vehicle is vicariously liable for the act of the driver.
D
The victim suffered injuries while alighting from the bus
belonging to the appellant and died on the. way to the hospital. The
respondents I to 4 the family members of the deceased, filed a claim
for compensation against the appellant and respondents no. 5 and 6,
insurer of the vehicle and the driver of the vehicle (bus) respectively. E
The Tribunal under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1939 awarded
compensation of Rs. 92,000 and held that since the deceased was a
"passenger" at the time of both accident the liability of the Insurance
Company was limited to Rs. 10,000 only.
Aggrieved by the order the appellant filed an appeal before the
High Co:irt contending that the Insurance Company was liable to
pay the entire compensation. The respondents I to 4 also filed an
appeal. The High Court dismissed both the appeals. Hence, this
appeal by special leave.
The plea of the Insurance company was that the deceased was a
passenger in the bus and therefore its liability was limited Rs.10,000
only as per the provision of section 95 of the Act. On the other hand,
the appellant contended that the victim was a "third party" and hence
the Insurance Company was liable to meet the entire claim.
401
F
G
H
•
402
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R.
A
Dismissing the appeal, this Court
HELD : I.I. The High Court rightly interpreted the provision
of section 95(1)(b) that a policy of insurance shall not be required to
cover the liability in respect of death or bodily injury to persons
boarding or alighting from a vehicle. But clause (ii) of the proviso
B thereto, engrafts an exception that where a vehicle is one in which
passengers are carried for hire or reward or by reason of or in
pursuance of a contract of employment, covers liability in relation to
persons carried in or upon such vehicle, including the cases of death
or bodily injury caused while entering or mounting or alighting from
the vehicle. The words "alighting from the vehicle" are plain and
C simple and clearly mean "while getting down from the vehicle." In
the present case, the vehicle was one that carried passenger for hire
and reward and was required to be covered by the policy and the
persons entering or alighting from the vehicle were treated as
passengers. [405-F-H, 406-A]
D
1.2. As the persons were passengers, the limit of liability of the
insurance company had t~ be ascertained by clause (ii) of section
95(2)(b) of the Act and at the relevant time the limit was Rs.10,000.
[405-E).
2. The appellant, being the owner of the bus was vicariously
E liable for the acts of his driver, the respondent No.6 and was liable
for the compensation for the death of the victim. [406-BC)
3. Since the accident took place in 1982, the old Act had to be
applied and the insurer, the respondent No.5 is liable only to the
F extend of Rs. 10,000. [406-BC)
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 14173-
74 of 1996.
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.4.92 of the Madras High
G Court in C.M.A. Nos. 381/85 and 241 of 1990.
A.F. Julian for Arputham Aruna and Co. for the Appellant.
A.K. Raina for R.D. Upadhyay for the Respondents.
H
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by :
NOORJAHAN v. SUL TAN RAJIA [AHMADI, CJ. J
403
AHMADI, CJI, Special leave granted.
Syed Abu Thakir on 3.8.1982 suffered injuries while alighting from
the bus belonging to the appellant and died on the way to the hospital. The
respondent No. I is the widow and the respondent No.2, the minor son of
A
the deceased while the respondents 3 and 4 are his father and mother
respectively. The respondent No.5 was the insurer of the vehicle while the B
respondent No.6. was the driver of the bus at the relevant time. The
respondents I toExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.