High Court Of Orissa
B. L. HANSARIA, G. B. Pattanaik , R. K. PATRA
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD - Appellant
Versus
KANCHAN BEWA - Respondent
MISC. APPEAL 488 Of 1989
Decided On : 10/11/1993
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - INSURANCE - LIABILITY OF INSURER - GOODS VEHICLE - OWNER OF GOODS TRAVELLING IN GOODS VEHICLE - WHETHER A PASSENGER FOR HIRE OR REWARD - PROVISO (II) TO SECTION 95 (1) (B) OF THE ACT - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:
The appeals by the insurer raised the question of its liability to satisfy the awards which have been passed in proceedings under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 claiming compensation for the death of three persons who were travelling in a goods vehicle, which had been hired by the deceased and who were travelling in the vehicle which got involved in an accident.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the owner of the goods who would be travelling in a goods vehicle taken on hire by him for carrying his goods would be a passenger "for hire or reward". The Court further held that proviso (ii) to Section 95 (1) (b) of the Act did not apply to the passengers carried for hire or reward in a goods vehicle and it is restricted to such passengers carried in a public service vehicle.
Issues: Whether the owner of the goods travelling in a goods vehicle taken on hire by him for carrying his goods would be a passenger "for hire or reward". Whether proviso (ii) to Section 95 (1) (b) of the Act applies to the passengers carried for hire or reward in a goods vehicle.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court interpreted the expression "where the vehicle is a vehicle in which passengers are carried for hire or reward" in proviso (ii) to Section 95 (1) (b) of the Act and held that it refers to a public service vehicle and not to a goods vehicle. The Court also considered the definition of "goods vehicle" in Section 2 (8) of the Act and the provisions of Rule 95 of the Orissa Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940 relating to carriage of persons in goods vehicles and concluded that a goods vehicle can carry passengers only when it is used for such a purpose and that too when the vehicle is being habitually used to carry passenger.
Final Decision: The Court answered the referred question by stating that proviso (ii) to Section 95 (1) (b) did not apply to the passengers carried for hire or reward in a goods vehicle and it is restricted to such passengers carried in a public service vehicle.
HANSARIA, J, J.
( 1 ) THESE appeals by the insurer have raised the question of its liability to satisfy the awards which have been passed in proceedings under Section 110-A of the Motor 'vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter, "the Act") claiming compensation for the death of three persons who were travelling in a goods vehicle, which had been hired by the deceased and who were travelling in the vehicle which got involved in an accident. When these appeals came before one of us (G. B. Patnaik, J.), reliance was placed on a bench decision of this Court in Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company of Ltd. v. Narayani Bai, 1984 Acc CJ 106 in which this question had been answered in affirmative. This had been done following the decisions of Karnataka High Court in Channappa v. Laxman Bhimappa, AIR 1979 Karnataka 93; T. M. Renukappa v. Fahmida, 1980 Acc CJ 86 and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Gangamma, 1982 Acc CJ 357. The learned Judge, however, noted that these decisions have been overruled by a Full Bench of that High Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Dundamma, 1992 Acc CJ 1. It was also noted that there were two lines of decisions taken by different High Courts on this question, and so, it was felt. appropriate to refer the matter to a larger Bench, though ordinarily a Bench decision would have been binding on the learned single Judge. It is this reference which finds these appeals before us.
( 2 ) DURING the course of hearing and subsequently by filing memo of citations, our attention has been invited to a number of decisions of different High Courts of the country taking different views in the matter. There are decisions according to which in such a case the insurer would be liable and there is a contrary view also. We have perused the decisions and would refer them at the appropriate places. Suffice it to say at this stage that the two conflicting views owe their origin mainly to the question as to whether the second proviso to Section 95 (1) (b) of the Act takes within its fold only "public service vehicle" or would extend to "goods vehicle".
( 3 ) BEFORE we note the aforesaid provision, a little excursion in history may be useful. Section 95 finds place in Chapter VIII of the Act on the subject of "insurance of Motor Vehicles Against Third-Party Risks. " So, it was the "third-party" which was basically in mind when the Legislature mandated that no person shall use a motor vehicle in a public place, unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that person, a policy of insurance, as stated in Section 94. Section 95 deals with the requirements of policies and limits of liability. That part of the section which dealt with the requirements of policies as inserted read as below:-"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 co-operative society, allowed under Section 108 to transact the business of an insurer, and (b) insures the person or classes of person specified in the policy to the extent specified in sub-section (2) against any liability which may be incurred by him or them in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any person caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place: provided that a policy shall not except as may be otherwise provided under, sub-section (3) 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 a conductor of th
REFERRED TO : National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Dundamma
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. K. T. Jose
Distributors (Baroda) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India
reliance on Nasibdar v. Adhia and Company
National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Laxmi Devi
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Gangamma
Pushpabai v. Ranjit Ginning arid Pressing Co.
Indian Mutual General Insurance Society Ltd. v. Mazdoor Ashan
C. Narayanan v. Madras State Palm Gur Sammelan
Kesavananda v. State of Kerala
case of South Indian Insurance Co. Ltd. v. P. Subramaniam
Vanguard Insurance Company Ltd. v. Chinnammal
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.