Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
National Insurancce Company Limited vs Kanaram And Ors on 18 September, 2019
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1181/2005
National Insurance Company Limited
----Appellant
Versus
Smt. Ramadevi & Ors
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1182/2005
National Insurance Company Limited
----Appellant
Versus
Kanaram & Ors.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sanjeet Johari
For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.L. Choudhary
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order 18/09/2019
1. The instant civil misc. appeals U/s.173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 have been filed in sum and substance for the following relief :-
"It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this appeal may kindly be allowed, the impugned judgment/ award dated 01.4.2005 may kindly be set aside and in the alternative the claim petition may be dismissed /or in the alternative complete liability may kindly be fastened on the respondent owner/insured only and the judgment/award may kindly be modified accordingly."(Downloaded on 05/06/2021 at 01:30:36 PM)
(2 of 7) [CMA-1181/2005]
2. The unfortunate accident happened on 26.7.2002 when Labhu Ram was travelling in Truck No.RJ-19G-6487 with his crop of "Javaar" and the truck over-turned near Vishnu Ki Dhani causing death of Labhu Ram.
3. The limited argument raised by counsel for the Insurance Company is that the deceased was travelling as an unauthorized/ gratuitous passenger in the truck. Mr. Sanjeev Johari, counsel for the appellant, submits that third party risk does not include gratuitous passenger in goods vehicle and admittedly the truck in-question was a goods vehicle.
4. Counsel for the respondent Mr. M.L. Choudhary submits that deceased-Labhu Ram was owner of crop of "Javaar" and was travelling in goods vehicle in the capacity of owner of crop/goods, thus, would be covered under Section 147 of M.V. Act. Counsel for the respondent has drawn attention of this Court towards statement of Ganpat Lal (PW-2), who is son of Labhu Ram. The statement of PW-2 clearly indicates that Labhu Ram was travelling in the truck as owner of "Javaar" crop. Counsel for the respondent placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Naseeb Kaur & Ors. (S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.787/2010, decided on 18.09.2019), which is reproduced hereunder :-
"CMA Nos. 787/2010,202/2008, 203/2008, 204/2008 and 205/2008 are preferred by the Insurance Company challenging the impugned awards passed in favour of the claimants in award dated 27.10.2008 in MACT case No. 125/2005 and award dated 31.10.2007 in MACT Case No. 05/2005.
2. In MACT Case No. 5/2005 the accident in question happened on 7.11.2004 when the claimants were travelling in a goods vehicle from Lalgarh to Dhanwali. The goods vehicle was being driven by one Darshan Singh and it was a canter bearing (Downloaded on 05/06/2021 at 01:30:36 PM) (3 of 7) [CMA-1181/2005] No. RJ 14 G 6673. The Canter met with an accident with another truck bearing No. RJ 31 G 4061 in which the family members of the claimants travelling in canter with their livestock died.
3. The FIR was lodged by one Amar Singh stating that the deceased persons were cattle owners who were going in the canter alongwith their animals and in the accident all the animals and the persons have died.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company has raised a limited legal question that since the claimants were passengers in a goods vehicle, therefore, they are not entitled for the claim in question.
5. Learned counsel for the claimants has drawn attention of this Court to the Section 147 of Sub Section (1) of the Motor Vehicle Act, which reads as follows: -
"147. Requirements of policies and limits of liability -
(1) In order to comply with the requirements of this Chapter, a policy of insurance must be a policy which-
(a)xxx xxx xxx
(b) insures the person or classes of persons specified in the policy to the extent specified in sub-section (2)- (I) against any liability which may be incurred by him in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any person, including owner of the goods or his authorized representative carried in the vehicle or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place;
(ii) xxx xxx xxx."
6. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that since the claimants were owner of the goods, therefore, they were to be indemnified by the Insurance Company.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents claimants has also shown the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in First Appeal No. 3246/2005 decided on 20.3.2018 relevant para reads as under: -
"So far as the contention that in Section 147 of the Motor Vehicle Act, the owner of goods mentioned indicates singular term or person simply could not be accepted as the injured and deceased were travelling upon the truck as owner of goods and the driver and owner of said truck allowed them to travel with their goods upon the truck. Therefore, the status of injured as well as deceased is established as a owner of goods."(Downloaded on 05/06/2021 at 01:30:36 PM)
(4 of 7) [CMA-1181/2005]
8. Learned counsel for the respondents has also shown the definition of goods which is in Section 2 (13) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 which reads as under:-
2. Definitions - In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires-, (13) "goods" includes livestock, and anything (other than equipment ordinarily used with the vehicle) carried by a vehicle except living persons, but does not include luggage or personal effects carried in a motor car or in a trailer attached to a motor car or the personal luggage of passengers travelling in the vehicle;"
9. Learned counsel for the respondents thus submits that since the claimants were owners of the goods i.e. cattle in question, therefore, they were entitled for the claim and thus, there is no illegality in the claim allowed by the learned court below.
10. Learned counsel for the respondents has shown the statement referred by Darshan Singh NAW/2 which clearly reflects that each of the claimants who died while travelling in the canter were owners of the cattle in question. This preposition of cattle and owners is fully justifying the award granted on 31.10.2017 in case No. 5/2005.
11. Though, the accident was same but it is not disputed by either of the parties that in award No. 125/2005 dated 27.10.2008 the deceased was not travelling in canter and was a third party and was entitled for the compensation in question.
12. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record of the case this Court finds that as far as the award dated 27.10.2008 passed in case No. 125/2005 is concerned, the deceased was a third party and thus, he was covered by the policy in question and the impugned order is perfectly justified and does not call for any interference.
13. As far as the award dated 31.10.2007 passed in case No. 05/05 is concerned, this court is of the firm opinion that Section 147 of the Motor Vehicle Act covers the owner of the goods or the authorized persons' representatives who are traveling in the vehicle and their risk has to be covered as per the insurance policy for the Motor Vehicle against the third party risk. The definition of goods is clear that except for the live persons all shall include in the definition of goods including livestocks. Therefore, (Downloaded on 05/06/2021 at 01:30:36 PM) (5 of 7) [CMA-1181/2005] the cattle in question which are livestocks is covered by the insurance policy for third party risk cover.
14. The precedent law of Hon'lble Gujarat High Court also says that there can be multiple owners and the owners shall be included in the third party risk coverage.
15. Judgment in the matter of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Asha Rani & Ors. Reported in Accidents Claims Journal 2003 Vol. I also supports the preposition as the liability of the Insurance Company including death or injuries sustained by the owner of the goods travelling by goods vehicle as passengers. Relevant para 9 & 30 are reproduced as under:-
9. In Satpal's case, 2000 ACJ 1 (SC), the court assumed that the provisions of Sections 95 (1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, are identical with section 147(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as it stood prior to its amendment.
But a careful scrutiny of the provisions would make it clear that prior to the amendment of 1994 it was not necessary for the insurer to insure against the owner of the goods or his authorised representative being carried in a goods vehicle. On an erroneous impression this court came to the conclusion that the insurer would be liable to pay compensation in respect of the death or bodily injury caused to either the owner of the goods or his authorised representative when being carried in a goods vehicle the accident occurred. If the motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act of 1994 is examined, particularly section 46 of Act 54 of 1994 by which expression 'injury to any person' in the original Act stood substituted by the expression 'injury to any person, including owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle" the conclusion is irresistible that prior to the aforesaid Amendment Act of 1994, even if widest interpretation is given to the expression 'to any person' it will not cover either the owner of the goods or his authorised representative being carried in the vehicle. The objects and reasons of section 46 also states that it seeks to amend section 147 to include owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle for the purposes of (Downloaded on 05/06/2021 at 01:30:36 PM) (6 of 7) [CMA-1181/2005] liability under the insurance policy. It is no doubt true that some times the legislature amends the law by way of amplification and clarification of an inherent position which is there in the statute, but a plain meaning being given to the words used in the statute, as it stood prior or its amendment of 1994, and as it stands subsequent to its amendment in 1994 and bearing in mind the objects and reasons engrafted in the amended provisions referred to earlier, it is difficult for us to construe that the expression 'including owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle' which was added to the pre existed expression 'injury to any person' is either clarificatory or amplification of the pre existing statute. On the other hand, it clearly demonstrates that the legislature wanted to bring within the sweep of section 147 and making it compulsory for the insurer to insure even in case of a goods vehicle, the owner of the goods or his authorised representative vehicle met with an accident and the owner of the goods or his representative either of this court in Satpal' case, therefore, decided and the impugned judgment of the Tribunal as well as that of the High Court accordingly are set aside and these appeals are allowed. It is held that the insurer will not be liable for paying compensation to the owner of goods or his authorised representative on being carried in a goods vehicle when that vehicle meets with an accident and the owner of goods or his representative dies or suffers any bodily injury. "
30. For the foregoing reasons, I am in respectful agreement with My Lord the Chief Justice of India that the decision of this Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. V. Satpal Singh, 2000 ACJ 1 (SC), has not laid down the law correctly and should be overruled.
16. Thus, this Court holds that since livestocks directly fall in the definition of goods and since admittedly in the FIR as well as in the statement rendered by the witnesses the deceased passengers in the goods vehicle canter were owners of the goods (Downloaded on 05/06/2021 at 01:30:36 PM) (7 of 7) [CMA-1181/2005] i.e. livestocks, therefore, there is no reason to deprive them from their compensation through insurance company which is indemnifying the third party risk of goods vehicle canter. Thus, no case for interference in the impugned awards is made out. The appeals are dismissed."
5. In light of aforesaid precedent law in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Naseeb Kaur & Ors. (supra) and also looking into the admitted position that deceased-Labhu Ram was owner of crop in-question, which was being transported in goods vehicle i.e. Truck No.RJ-19G-6487, therefore, he is entitled for compensation as per Section 147 of M.V. Act as well as in light of aforementioned precedent law.
6. Since compensation has already been disbursed, thus, no case for interference by this Court in 9% interest is made out.
The impugned judgment and award is accordingly modified holding Insurance Company liable for paying compensation to the deceased. The appeals, thus, are dismissed.
(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J 43-Sanjay/-
(Downloaded on 05/06/2021 at 01:30:36 PM)Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)