Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Branch Manager, National Insurance ... vs Nanda And Ors. on 10 March, 2004
Equivalent citations: III(2004)ACC628, RLW2004(3)RAJ1863, 2004(3)WLC128
Author: S.K. Keshote
Bench: S.K. Keshote
JUDGMENT S.K. Keshote, J.
1. These special appeals arise out of the accident took place on 6.10.1994 and thus the same are taken up for hearing and being decided together by this common judgment.
2. These appeals relate to both-fatal accident and injuries.
3. The amount of compensation also varied in these cases looking to the facts thereof.
4. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kekri, District Ajmer, (for short, 'the Tribunal') vide its judgment dated 20.9.2000, decided the claim cases of the claimant respondents. Though, the appeals against the judgment of the learned Tribunal filed before the learned Single Judge, have been decided by separate orders.
5. The offending vehicle, undisputedly, was the Truck bearing No. RSZ-5851. The deceased and injured were the passengers/occupants in the offending Truck which met with accident.
6. Before the learned Tribunal, the non-claimant No. 3 appellant-the Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, Ajmer (hereinafter shall be referred to as 'the appellant Company') raised the issue that the offending Truck was not meant for carrying passengers and thus for the death and injuries of the passengers/occupants therein, the liability to pay the amount of compensation is not of the appellant Company. On this plea, Issue No. 4 was framed by the learned Tribunal. Some other preliminary objections were also raised on which Issue No. 3 was framed.
7. The learned Tribunal decided both these issues together. The other preliminary objections raised were not accepted by the learned Tribunal the finding on Issue No. 3 is recorded against the appellant Company.
8. As regards to the issue No. 4, the learned Tribunal, relying on the decision of the Karnataka High Court held the appellant Company liable to reimburse for the liability of the owner of the Truck of compensation for the injuries and death of the passengers in the offending Truck.
9. Dissatisfied with the award of the learned Tribunal, the appellant Company preferred separate appeals which have been decided by the learned Single Judge tinder separate orders, which are impugned in these special appeals.
10. The learned Single Judge has not accepted this contention of the appellant Company and rejected the appeals, thus these special appeals.
11. The learned counsel for the parties are in agreement that these matters are squarely covered in favour of the appellant Company on the legal point by the latest pronouncement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Baljit Kaur and Ors. (1). The learned counsel for the claimant respondents submitted that the judgment of the learned Tribunal, confirmed by the learned Single Judge, may not be upset and liberty may be granted to the appellant Company to recover the amount of compensation from the owner of the offending Truck.
12. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the appellant Company submitted that the law is settled and thus the insurer is not liable to reimburse for the liability of payment of compensation of the insured for the death and bodily injuries of passengers in the Truck. The award of the learned Tribunal may be set aside and the claimant respondents be directed to refund the amount paid to them in pursuance thereof and liberty may be granted to them to recover the amount of compensation from the owner of the offending Truck.
13. We have given our thoughtful and anxious consideration to the rival contentions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
14. Having heard learned counsel for the parties we are satisfied that these matters are squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Baljit Kaur and Ors. (supra).
15. It is not in dispute that the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in New India Assurance Company v. Satpal Singh (2), has been reversed by a three-Judge Bench in New India Assurance Company Limited v. Asha Kant (3), which was followed in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Devireddy Konda Reddy (4).
16. In the case of New India Assurance Company Limited v. Asha Rani (supra), it was held that the previous decision in Satpal Singh's case, was incorrectly rendered, and that the words "any person" as used in Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, would not include passengers in the goods vehicle, but would rather be confined to the legislative intent to provide for third party risk.
17. The question before the Hon'ble Apex Court in Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Devireddy Konda Reddy (supra), involved was in the present case, re the liability of the Insurance Company of payment of compensation to the heirs of a gratuitous passenger traveling in a goods vehicle. However, before their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Baljit Kaur (supra), a contention was raised by the owner and the driver of the offending vehicle that the decisions in the cases of New India Assurance Company Limited v. Asha Rani and Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Devireddy Konda Reddy (supra), were delivered with respect to the provision as stands prior to the amendment of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1994. As per their contention, the effect of the legislative amendment was not in question in the above cases and, therefore, the law laid down in these two decisions would not be considered as binding law in view of coming into force of the said amendment. It was the submission of the respondents-owner and driver, that insertion, by way of legislative amendment, of the words "including owner of the goods or his authorized representative carried in the vehicle" in Section 147 would result in the inference that gratuitous passengers would as well be covered by the scope of the provision. Any other construction, it was urged, would render the effect of the words "any person" as completely redundant.
18. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para No. 20 of the judgment in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Baljit Kaur (supra), held that in spite of the amendment of 1994, the effect of the provision contained in Section 147 with respect to persons other than the owner of the goods or his authorized representative remains the same. Although the owner of the goods or his authorized representative would now be covered by the policy of insurance in respect of a goods vehicle, it was not the intention of the Legislature to provide for the liability of the insurer with respect to passengers, especially gratuitous passengers, who were neither contemplated at the time the contract of insurance was entered into, nor any premium was paid to the extent of the benefit of insurance to such category of people.
19. Thus, now, there is no more res integra that in such accident for the death of or bodily injury of any person or gratuitous passenger, in the goods vehicle, instead of and in place of insurer, the owner of the vehicle shall be liable to satisfy to the award. Then their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the question whether keeping in view the fact that the law was not clear so long such a direction would be fair and equitable-the question was answered to the effect that the legal position which shall have prospective effect. The Hon'ble Supreme Court opined that the interest of justice will be subserved if the Insurance Company is directed to satisfy the award of the amount of compensation in favour of the claimant if not already satisfied and recovered the same from the owner of the vehicle. For the purpose of recovery the court ordered-it would not be necessary for the Insurance Company to file a separate suit but it may initiate proceedings before the 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.
20. In some of the appeals the amount of compensation awarded is less than Rs. 15000/-. As the amount of compensation awarded is meager sum, in those appeals there is no difficulty in giving direction to the Insurance Company to pay the amount to the claimant and if so desires and finds viable, initiate proceedings for recovery thereof from the owner.
21. As regards to the other appeals, in which the amount of compensation is substantial, it is not in dispute, part thereof has already been paid by the Insurance Company to the claimants. The balance amount of compensation therein, the Insurance Company to make payment thereof to the claimants as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Baljit Kaur and Ors. (supra).
22. The Insurance Company in all other appeals forthwith to deposit the balance amount of compensation with interest at the rate as what it is ordered by the learned Tribunal, within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment with the Registrar (Administration), Rajasthan High Court Bench. Jaipur. On deposit of this amount, the Registrar (Administration) is directed to invest the same in long term Fix Deposit Receipts initially for a period of 39 months with the Indian Overseas Bank, M.I. Road Branch, Jaipur, The appellant Insurance Company is free to recover the amount of compensation paid by it to the claimants, from the owner of the vehicle. For the purpose of recovery of this amount, it would not be necessary for the Company to file a separate suit but it may initiate proceedings before the executing court as if the dispute between the insurer and the owner was the subject matter of determination before the Tribunal and same is decided against the owner and in favour of the insurer.
23. In the result the special appeals and the stay applications, filed therewith, accordingly stand disposed of in the terms aforesaid, with no orders as to costs.