2003(5) Supreme 118
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Patna High Court)
Mrs. Ruma Pal & B.N. Srikrishna, JJ.
Ramashray Singh -Appellant
versus
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 5147 of 2003
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 20600 of 2002)
Decided on 22-7-2003
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Arup Banerjee and Deba Prasad Mukherjee, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Kishore Kr. Rawat and M.K. Dua, Advocates.
(ii) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988-Section 147-Insurer s liability-Comprehensive policy-An insurance policy covers only person or classes of persons specified in policy-Comprehensive policy merely means that loss sustained by such person/persons will be payable upto insured amount irrespective of actual loss. (Para 4)
JUDGMENT
Ruma Pal, J.-Leave granted.
2. The appellant is the owner of a vehicle, described as a "trekker", in which passengers are carried for hire. He employed Shashi Bhushan Singh as a "khalasi" of the vehicle. On 21.10.1998 the vehicle met with an accident as a result of which Shashi Bhushan Singh died. The legal heirs of the deceased employee filed a claim in the Workmen s Compensation Court against the appellant, as the owner of the vehicle, and against the respondent insurance company. The Workmen s Compensation Court held that the vehicle had been comprehensively insured with the respondent and that since the accident had occurred during the period of insurance, the insurance company was liable to pay the compensation on account of the death of the employee. The respondent was, therefore, directed to deposit the compensation determined under the provisions of The Workmen s Compensation Act, 1923.
3. The decision was challenged by the respondent before the High Court at Patna under Article 226. The High Court allowed the writ petition . It held that in the absence of any special contract between the appellant and the respondent, the rights of the parties were governed by statute which did not require the respondent to cover liability in respect of an accident to a khalasi. The statute in question is the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (referred to hereinafter as the Act).
4. The appellant has impugned the decision of the High Court before this Court, primarily on the ground that the High Court had misconstrued the provisions of the Act and in particular clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 147. It was contended that the insurance policy expressly covered the death or injury to the khalasi. Our attention was drawn to the insurance certificate where under the heading "Particulars of the vehicle insured" there is a column which refers to "Seating capacity including driver and cleaner". Under this sub-head the figure "13+1" has been inserted. A cleaner, as accepted by both parties before us, would include a khalasi. The appellant submitted that he had paid premium on the basis of 13+1 to cover the liability in question.
5. The respondent has refuted the claim that any additional premium was paid to cover the risk pertaining to a khalasi. It is contended that in terms of the insurance policy, as also under the provisions of Section 147(1) (b), no employee of the insured apart from the driver was covered.
6. Chapter XI of the Act covers the subject Insurance of Motor Vehicles Against Third Party Risks under Section 146(1) of which no person shall use a motor vehicle in public unless there is a valid policy of insurance which complies with the requirements of the Chapter. The mandatory requirements of such insurance policy have been provided in Section 147.
7. The relevant extract of Section 147 is reproduced with emphasis on the words on which the appellant s case rests :
"Section 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 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 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) against the death of or bodily injury to any passenger of a public service vehicle caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place :
Provided that a policy shall not be required-
(i) to cover liability in respect of the death, arising out of and in the course of his employment, of the employee of a person insured by the policy or in respect of bodily injury sustained by such an employee arising out of and in the course
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.