UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. versus SERJERAO AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 11 S.C.R. 1150 · Decided: 14-11-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. 
V. 
SE1'.JERAO AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 14, 2007 
B 
[DR. ARinT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIV AM,JJ.) 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988-ss. 140and173-Motor accident-
Injury to persons travelling in Trolly attached to Tractor-Claim for 
c compensation-Granted by Tribunalfixing the liability to pay, on the 
Insurance Compan~Appeal of Insurance Company u/s 173-During 
pendency thereof, execution proceedings-Writ Petition by insurance 
Company dismissed-On appeal, held: The issues regarding 
maintainability of appeal u/s 17 3 and regarding liability of insurance 
D Company to pay compensation in such case, covered by judgments of 
Supreme Court-Matter remitted to decide the case in accordance 
therewith. 
Persons traveling in a Trolly attached to a Tractor, suffered 
injuries in a motor accident. They claimed compensation. Tribunal 
E -passed the award rejecting the plea of the Insurance Company that 
it was not liable to pay compensation in such case, as it was the 
liability of the owner of the Tractor. While appeal of Insurance 
j' 
Company was pending before High Court, execution proceedings 
were initiated. Therefore the Company filed a Writ Petition, but the 
F 
same was dismissed. Hence the present appeals. 
Disposing of the appeals and remitting them to High Court, the 
Court 
HELD: The issues regarding maintainability of the appeal in 
G terms of Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and regarding 
liability oflnsurance Company to pay compensation to the labourers 
travelling in trollics, since have been decided by this Court, appeals 
arc remitted to High Court to consider the matters in the light of 
1150 
H 
i 
·-
... 
...( 
A_ 
UNITEDINDIAINSURANCECO.LTD. v. SERJERAO 
1151 
[PASAYAT,J.] 
those judgments. [Paras 6.and 8] [1152-C, D; 1153-E, F] 
A 
Smt. Yellawwa and Ors. v. Nationallnsurance Co. Ltd. andAnr., 
(2007) 8 SCALE 77 and Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Brij' 
Mohan and Ors., (2007) 7 SCALE 753, relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5201 B 
of2007. 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 20.4.2004 of the High' 
Coutt of Judicature of Bombay, Aurangabad Bench at Aurangabad in 
Writ Petition No. 4187 of2003. 
WITH 
C.A. Nos. 5202-5205, 5207 & 5208 of 2007. 
Sudhir Kumar Gupta for the Appellant. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. Challenge in these appeals is to the order passed by a learned 
Single Judge of the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench dismissing 
c 
D 
the writ petitions filed by the appellant (described hereinafter as 'the E 
Insurance Company'). The controversy lies within a very narrow compass. 
3. The respondents were travelling in the Trolly attached to a Tractor , 
as labourers. They claimed to have suffered injuries because the Tractor 
with the Trolly in each case met with an accident. Petitions claiming 
compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short 'the Act') F 
were filed along with application under Section 140 of the Act. Order 
was passed by the learned Additional District Judge and Ex-officio · 
Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Latur (in short 'the MACT) 
on the principle of no fault liability. The Insurance Company took the stand · 
that it had no liability in respect of the persons travelling in the Trolly and iG 
.1, 
the owner of the Tractor is liable to pay compensation. This plea was 
rejected by the MACT. Appeal in tenns of Section 173 of the Act in , 
each case was preferred before the High Court. Learned Single Judge, 
primajacie, was of the view that the appeal was not maintainable. 
Neve1theless, he referred the matter to the Division Bench, which, it 
H 
1152 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2007] 11 S.C.R. 
A appears referred it to a Full Bench. While the matter was pending 
consideration by the Full Bench, execution proceedings were filed. 
The.~fore, writ petitions were filed before the High Cowt The High Court, 
by the impugned order in each c;ase, dismissed the writ petitions holding 
that thqugh arguable questions were involved, the writ petitions did not 
B 
de~rve CQI1Sidera,tion. 
4. In support of the appeals, learned counsel for the appellant-
Insurance Gompany subviitted that the appeals in terms of Section 173 
of the Ac;t we.re m,aipta)nable arid in any event, the {nsurap.ce Company 
has no liability in resp~t of the persons ti:awlling in trQllies a,ttached to 
C the Tractors. 
5. There is no appea{an,ce on behalf of the respondents when the 
1

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