Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.62 seconds)Section 147 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
United India Insurance Company Ltd. vs Appukuttan And Anr. on 31 May, 1995
9. We do not find any reason to disagree with the above view taken in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Appukuttan [1995] 84 Comp Cas 686 ; [1995] 1 kLT 807. According to us, the term "any person" contained in Section 95(1)(b)(i) would take in even a passenger in a private vehicle. But proviso (ii) mandates that a policy under Section 95 shall not be required to cover liability in respect of the death of or bodily injury to persons being carried in or upon or entering or mounting or alighting from the vehicle at the time of the occurrence of the event out of which a claim arises, except where the vehicle is a vehicle in which passengers are carried for hire or reward or by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment. We are unable to agree with learned counsel for the appellant that proviso (ii) is superfluous in view of the provisions contained under Section 95(1)(b)(ii) and, therefore, its omission in Section 147 of the 1988 statute would not make any difference. Clause (b)(i) refers to death of or bodily injury to "any person" arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place. Proviso (i) makes special provision in respect of employees who are carried in the vehicle limiting the liability to that arising under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, in respect of the death of, or bodily injury to, such employee. Proviso (ii) limits the application of Clause (b)(i) to a vehicle in which passengers are carried for hire or reward or by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment. It excludes liability in respect of the death of or bodily injury to passengers in other vehicles.
The Employee's Compensation Act, 1923
Chacko P.M. Alias Thankachan vs Rosamma Antony And Ors. on 30 January, 1991
In Chacko v. Rosamma [1991] 1 KLT 711 it was held that an Act policy will not cover gratuitous passengers in a private car. There is also an observation in the above judgment that the policy being only an Act policy, it covers only third party risk. It does not cover risk of passengers.
Smt Mallawwa Etc vs Oriental Insurance Co, Ltd. And Ors on 27 November, 1998
14. It is in the light of the above, we have to examine the effect of deletion of proviso (ii) while enacting Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Clause (b)(i) of Section 147 now stands limited only by proviso (i) and also the contractual liability which was incorporated originally as proviso (hi) in Section 95(l)(b), but as proviso (ii) in Section 147(l)(b). Proviso (i) deals with only the case of employees. The liability referred to in Clause (i) would apply to death of or bodily injury to "any person". Since the limitation brought under proviso (ii) that is by excluding the liability in respect of death or bodily injury to a passenger except a passenger who is carried for hire or reward or by reason of or in pursuance of contract of employment is no longer available in the statute. Therefore, it has to be taken that the term "any person" referred to in Clause (b)(i) would take in all passengers for hire or reward or otherwise. We do not find any merit in the contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant that if the term "any person" in Clause (b)(i) would take in passengers in private vehicles carried in for hire or reward then it was unnecessary for the Legislature to bring in the amendment under the Act 54 of 1994 to include the owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle in Clause (i). As was clearly observed by the Supreme Court in Mallawwa v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. [1999] 95 Comp Cas 629 ; AIR 1999 SC 589, it would not be proper to consider a goods vehicle as a vehicle in which passengers are carried normally. It was under these circumstances, an amendment was required to include the owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle by specific amendment in Clause (i).
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Smt. Radharani And Ors. on 11 August, 1997
A similar view was taken by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, v. Smt. Radharani, AIR 1999 MP 47. It was held that an Act policy under Section 147 would cover the occupant of a jeep who is carried without hire or reward.
The English And Foreign Languages University Act, 2006
Amrit Lal Sood & Anr vs Smt. Kaushalya Devi Thapar & Ors on 17 March, 1998
In support of his contention he placed reliance on Velunni v. Vellakutty [1989] 2 KLT 227 ; Chacko v. Rosamma [1991] 1 KLT 711 ; Pushpabai Parshottam Udeshi v. Ranjit Ginning and Pressing Co. P. Ltd. [1977] AC] 343 ; AIR 1977 SC 1735 and Amrit Lal Sood v. Smt. Kaushalya Devi Thapar [19.98] 92 Comp Cas 305 ; AIR 1998 SC 1433, Before we enter upon a discussion on these decisions we would first refer to the relevant provisions under the earlier enactment and the current statute. Section 95 is the parallel provision in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The relevant portion of Section 95 reads as follows :