KASLIWAL, J.—Learned Single Judge by order dated August 9, 1984, has referred all the above appeals to a larger bench for authoritative decision on the question of liability of the Insurance Company under sections 95 and 96 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter called the Act) in respect of the death or injury caused to persons who travelled in the goods vehicle with the goods or without goods or either in contract of service of the owner of the vehicle or otherwise.

2. Learned Single Judge has observed :

"The accidents cover different species of claims and, it would not be possible to generalise them except to the limited extent that in all such cases, the panicle, the owner of which is asked to pay compensation, is essentially to be a goods vehicle in which the goods are to be transported and in the course of the accident, the injury is caused or death is caused to a person travelling in that goods vehicle in the capacity either of owner of the goods or representative of the owners of the goods or of a passenger being allowed to travel in the truck-goods vehicle or, of an employee of the owner of the goods vehicle or, as a person in contract of employment or other-wise of the owner of the goods vehicle or, as a person travelling wholly in an unauthorised manner. Even, these cases are illustrative and they are no exhaustive."

It has been further observed that divergent views have been taken by the various High Courts and there is no authoritative pronouncement of Honble the Supreme Court directly laying down the principles of law for the guidance of High Court or tribunals to adjudicate such cases under the provisions of the Act. Learned Single Judge has given citations of various High Courts taking divergent views on the above question and thought it proper to refer the cases for authoritative decision of a larger bench of not less than 3 judges so that the controversy be set at rest and important guide-lines may be provided for decision of such cases. In the above circumstances, these appeals have been placed before us by order of Honble the Chief Justice.

3. There is divergence of opinion between different High Courts in this country on the question whether an insurer is liable to indemnify the owner of the goods, when he receives bodily injury or death while accompanying the goods or without goods in a goods vehicle which he hires from the owner of the vehicle. Bombay, Karnataka, Gujarat, Orissa, Kerala and Allahabad High Courts have taken the view that Insurance Company is statutorily liable to indemnify the owner of the goods also while Punjab, Calcutta, Madras and Andhra Pradesh High Courts have taken a contrary view.

4. Before dealing with the cases, it would be proper to reproduce the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules in this regard.

"S. 95—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 by a cooperative society allowed under Sec. 108 to transact the business of an insurer), and

(b) insurse 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 of his employment (other than a liability arising under the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document