J. B. MEHTA, P. D. DESAI, J.

( 1 ) * * * *

( 2 ) SO far as the other two deceased persons Sidi Musa and Noormohmad were concerned they were persons who were merely given lift. They are not shown to be persons carried on the truck G. T. Z. 1959 for hire or reward or by reason of or under any contract of employment. The evidence of Pravinchandra is very categorical that they were merely given lift. So far as Noormohmad was concerned it was an act of mere social kindness out of sympathy for him and for his ailing buffalo calf. For Sidi Musa also it was a mere lift given in presence of the owner Pravinchandra by the cleaner Abbas and so of course with the consent of Pravinchandra.

( 3 ) THE question about insurance coverage of such passenger risk is now finally settled by the aforesaid decision of Their Lordships in Pushpabai v. Ranjit Ginning and Pressing Co. Pvt. Ltd. A. I. R. 1977 S. C. 1735. At page 1745 Their Lordships first pointed out that sec. 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 as amended by Act 56 of 1969 was based on the corresponding English Acts the Road Traffic Acts of 1930 and 1960 neither of which required users of motor vehicles to be insured in respect of liability for death or bodily injury to passengers in the vehicle being used except a vehicle in which passengers were carried for hire or reward or by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment. In fact sec. 203 of the 1960 Act provided that the policy shall not be required to cover liability in respect of death of or bodily injury to persons being carried in or upon or entering or getting on to or alighting from the vehicle at the time of the occurrence of the event out of which the claims arise. Their Lordships in terms pointed out that the provisions of the English Acts being explicit the risk to passengers is not covered by the insurance policy and it was these provisions in the English Road Traffic Act 1960 which were introduced by the 1969 amendment of sec. 95 of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act. The law as regards general exclusion of passengers was reproduced from Halsburys Laws of England Third Edition Vol. 22 at page 368 para 755 as under:subject to certain exceptions a policy is not required to cover liability in respect of the death of or bodily injury to a person being carried in or upon or entering or getting into or alighting from the vehicle at the time of the occurrence of the event out of which the claim arises. The subsequent development in England by subsequent statutory changes was not found to be necessary to be referred to where insurance cover for passenger liability was made compulsory by repealing paragraph (a) and the proviso of sec. 203 (4) by the Motor Vehicle (Passenger Insurance) Act 1971 which was also repealed by the Road Traffic Act 1972 though under sec. 145 of 1972 Act the coming into force of the provisions of Act 1971 covering passenger liability was delayed until December 1 1972

( 4 ) THEREAFTER Their Lordships pointed out that secs. 95 (a) and 95 (b) (i) of our Motor Vehicles Act had adopted the provisions of the English Road Traffic Act 1960 and excluded the liability of the insurance company regarding the risk to the passengers. Sec. 95 provided that a policy of insurance must be a policy which insures the person against any liability which may be incurred by him in respect of death 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. Therefore the plea that the words third party were wide enough to cover all persons except the person and the insurer was in terms negatived as the insurance cover was not available to the passengers. That was in terms made clear by the proviso (ii) to sec. 95 (1) which provides that a policy shall not be required: (II) 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 to cover liability in respect o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document