2011 Supreme(Del) 607
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. ………..Appellant
Versus
HAZARA & ORS. ……….Respondents
AND
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. ………..Appellant
Versus
ASMAA & ORS. ……….Respondents
AND
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. ………..Appellant
Versus
JAGWATI DEVI & ORS. ……….Respondents
AND
ASMAA & ORS. ……….Appellants
Versus
MOHD. SAZID @ SHOKEEN & ORS. ………..Respondents
AND
HAZARA & ORS. ……….Appellants
Versus
MOHD. SAZID @ SHOKEEN & ORS. ………..Respondents
AND
JAGWATI & ORS. ……….Appellants
Versus
MOHD. SAZID @ SHOKEEN & ORS. ………..Respondents
MAC APPEAL No. 154, 207, 209, 320, 324, 321/2011 and CM Nos. 8699, 4890, 4925/2011 & 3644, 8695, 8698/2011
Decided on : 27.9.2011
Mr.Santosh Paul and Ms.Mohita Bagati, Advocates.
Mr.J.N.Singh, Advocate.
The liability of the insurance company extends to persons traveling with their goods under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act - Liability of Insurance Company - Section 147
Fact of the Case:
Three persons died in an accident while traveling in a canter. The claimants filed petitions before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal. The question was whether the deceased were sitting in the vehicle as gratuitous passengers or with deemed goods.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the deceased were neither paid nor gratuitous passengers, but were sitting in the vehicle with deemed articles. The insurance company could not ward off its liability.
Issues: The main issue was whether the insurance company could avoid liability under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the purpose and import of the Motor Vehicles Act, which aims to ensure speedy compensation for victims of accidents. It interpreted the legislation to extend the liability of the insurance company to persons traveling with their goods.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeals of the insurance company and enhanced the compensation for loss of love and affection to the claimants of the deceased victims.
INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)
1. This judgment shall dispose of six appeals which are pending before this Court; three of which have been filed by the Insurance Company and balance three by the claimants of the deceased victims. Record shows that three persons had died in an accident which had occurred in the intervening night of 13-14.6.2007 while travelling in an open canter; the deceased were Sattar, Asgar Ali and Babu Ram; Sattar had died at the spot; Babu Ram and Asgar Ali had succumbed to their injuries in the hospital. The claimants of the deceased victims had filed three claim petitions before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal. One eye-witness PW-5 Anil Kumar had been examined in evidence. His testimony was to the effect that he along with his uncle Bhagwat, Asgar Ali, Babu Ram, Sattar and other persons were going to Rawatsar in a canter to purchase buffaloes; the cantor was being driven by Shokeen when their vehicle was hit by the offending truck which was coming on the wrong side as result of which all the persons sitting in the cantor sustained injuries; pursuant to which the aforenoted persons namely Babu Ram, Asgar Ali and Sattar had died; PW-5 had sustained injuries. In his cross-examination he had denied the suggestion that he was not an eye-witness; his categorical denial was that he was not sleeping at that time; he had also denied the suggestion that the accident had occurred because of the negligence of the driver of their canter. Testimony of PW-5 was examined in depth and detail by the learned Tribunal.
2. The question which was posed before the Tribunal was whether the Insurance Company could ward off its liability in terms of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Section 147 of the said Act reads as under:
“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) is issued by a person who is an authorised insurer; or
(b) insurer 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 1[injury to any person, including owner of the goods or his authorised 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) 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 of his employment other than a liability arising under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923) in respect of the death of, or bodily injury to, any such employee- (a) engaged in driving the vehicle, or (b) if it is a public service vehicle engaged as conductor of the vehicle or in examining tickets on the vehicle, or
(c) if it is a goods carriage, being carried in the vehicle, or (ii) to cover any contractual liability. Explanation.-For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the death of or bodily injury to any person or damage to any property of a third party shall be deemed to have been caused by or to have arisen out of, the use of a vehicle in a public place notwithstanding that the person who is dead of injured or the property which is damaged was not in a public place at the time of the accident, if the act or omission which led to the accident occurred in a public place.
(2) Subject to the proviso to sub-section (1), a policy of insurance referred to in sub-section (1), shall cover any liability incurred in respect of any accident, up to the following limits, namely:- (a) save as provided in c