Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

He also relied upon decision of apex court in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Rattani and others, (2009) 2 SCC 75 and submitted that in said decision, apex court has considered case of members of marriage party travelling in truck allegedly transporting gifts received from bride party and it was held that it cannot fall into the above category. He submitted that it was considered by apex court that when marriage party was travelling in a goods vehicle, then, whatever goods found with such unauthorized persons cannot be considered to be owner of goods and whatever goods are lying with such unauthorized person is not covered by definition of goods given under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act. He further submitted that persons those who were travelling in goods vehicle Matador on the date of accident, they cannot even be considered to be care taker of the goods. He also relied upon para 3 page 7 of award and submitted that no contention has been considered which has been raised by appellant insurance company before claims tribunal at Junagadh while passing award in question. He also submitted that looking to language used by claims tribunal in para 3 of award, it gives an impression that decision of apex court in case of Satpal Singh, AIR 2000 SC 235, has been relied upon by insurance company but in fact, said decision was not relied upon by appellant because it is against insurance company and, therefore, apparently mistake has been committed by claims tribunal. He also submitted that in appeal memo, all contentions are raised by appellant insurance company and such contentions have not been examined and not considered by claims tribunal and, therefore, according to him, claims tribunal has committed gross error in deciding group of claim petitions. Grounds raised by appellant in memo of appeal are therefore, referred to as under, for his satisfaction:

On the other hand, learned Advocate Mr.KL Dave appearing for respondents claimants submitted that except three matters where persons died, in rest of matters, small amounts are involved, may be less than Rs.30000.00 to Rs.20000.00 which has been awarded by claims tribunal. He further submitted that it was not a marriage party but it was a 'dhag' which had gone to take daughter of Dahyabhai along with goods and, therefore, decision of apex court in case of Rattani (supra) is not applicable to facts of present case. He placed on record copy of FIR against that, learned Advocate Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati for appellant submitted that in case of Prema Devi and Rattani, no order was passed to pay amount of compensation to claimants and then to recover such amount from owner of vehicle and, therefore, no such order can be passed in present case by this Court.

The question, however, would be as to whether keeping in view the fact that the law was not clear so long such a direction would be fair and equitable. We do not think so. We, therefore, clarify the legal position which shall have prospective effect. [Emphasis supplied].

Therefore, decision of apex court over ruling earlier decision in case of Satpal Singh (supra), is having prospective effect and it is not mere observations made by apex court on facts of case of Baljit Kaur. Apex court has, in terms, made it clear while clarifying legal position between Satpal Singh and Asha Rani and in terms clarified legal position which shall have prospective effect, therefore, decision which has been relied upon by claims tribunal on the date on which award was passed, on that day, there was no any other decision contrary to hold field at the relevant time, therefore, while over ruling decision of case of Satpal Singh in case of Asha Rani, that legal position has been clarified by apex court that it will be having prospective effect and, therefore, award which has been passed by claims tribunal is not required to be disturbed and, therefore, contention raised by learned Advocate Mr. Nanavati cannot be accepted. In fact, ratio which has been laid down by apex court in case of Baljit Kaur (supra) which is binding to this court under Article 141 of the Constitution of India as a Binding Precedent and, therefore, decision in any subsequent case which has been relied upon by learned Advocate Mr.Nanavati as referred to above in his submission cannot be made applicable to facts of present case because from decision of apex court in case of Baljit Kaur, it is clear that over ruling of decision of Satpal Singh in case of Asha Rani is having prospective effect and, therefore, in view of that, whatever award passed by claims tribunal relying upon decision of Satpal Singh cannot be disturbed by this Court. Therefore, according to my opinion, decision of apex court which has been relied case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Rattani and others, (2009) 2 SCC 75 as well as apex court decision in case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Cholleti Bharatamma and others, reported in (2008) SCC 423, Chimajirao Kanhojirao Shirke versus Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co.