Honble BALIA, J.–All these appeals arise out of accident claim cases which arose on account of a single accident which took place on 10.7.1992. On that date, Padma Ram, Chaina Ram and Hamu Ram were travelling in Jonga Jeep No. RSF-8247, being driven by Neem Singh and it was travelling towards road leading from Barmer to Jaisalmer. As a result of the said accident, Padma Ram and Chaina Ram died and Hamu Ram suffered injuries.

(2). Three claim petitions were filed : one by heirs and dependants of Chaina Ram being MACT Case No. 74/92,; second by Hamu Ram being MACT Case No. 2/93; and third by Smt. Chauthi and Pancha Ram parents of Padma Ram being MACT Case No. 82/92 impleading United India Insurance Company Limited, Barmer as the Insurer and Nimb Singh and Narpat Singh being the driver and owner of the vehicle respectively. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Barmer vide its Award dated 23.2.1995 finding that the vehicle was being driven rashly and negligently by Neem Singh, which resulted in death of Padma Ram and Chaina Ram and injury to Hamu Ram; the vehicle was insured with United India Insurance Co. Limited is a fact not in dispute; noticed the plea of the Insurance Company that the vehicle was insured as a private vehicle only, while at the time of accident it was being used as a taxi and the passengers were being carried in for hire and reward and as such there was a breach of the conditions of the Insurance Policy, and therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation.

(3). The Tribunal in this respect found on the basis of statement of witness produced by the Insurance Company, who admitted that the insurance cover was issued for covering third party risks, for which a premium of Rs. 240/- was charged, and an additional premium of Rs. 15/- was charged and that the policy was issued for private and vocational use and, therefore, it cannot be held that the owner of the vehicle was using the vehicle in the breach of the policy conditions. Consequently awards were made in all the three claim petitions making the Insurance Company liable.

(4). Aggrieved with the aforesaid awards, the Insurance Company preferred three appeals before the High Court.

(5). The learned Single Judge vide his judgment under appeal dated 21.3.2003 found that the policy was an ``Act only policy and referring to a decision of the Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Asha Rani (1), and others cases observed that the expression `any person appearing in Section 147(1)(b)(i) of the Act does include occupants of private vehicle which is not a public service vehicle and the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the owner under the `Act only policy unless such a risk is covered under specific term of contract by charging additional premium or otherwise. Consequently the award against the Insurance Company was set aside in each case and it was held that the appellants shall be entitled to recover whatever amount that might have been paid by it from the owner and/or driver.

(6). Aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment, these appeals have been preferred by Smt. Varju in the case arising out of the death of Chaina Ram in the accident claim case No. 74/92 and the other three appeals have been preferred by Neemb Singh, the owner of the vehicle.

(7). The only question, which has been raised in all these appeals is whether the Insurance Company is liable under the provisions of Section 147(1)(b)(i) to cover the risk of occupant of a vehicle even if the same is not a public service vehicle and the ratio of C.M. Jayas case is confined to cases relating to gratuitous passengers carried in goods vehicle prior to 14.11.1994 ? The said decisions does not govern the case of private vehicles.

(8). The contention is founded on the distinction made out from the conjoint reading of provisions of repealed Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and the provisions made under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 correspondingly governing the minimum risk required to be co

Click Here to Read the rest of this document