Back
2002 Supreme(Ori) 476
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Pradipta Ray, J.
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. - APPELLANT
Versus
SMT. BANANI ALIAS PADMINI KHUNTIA AND OTHERS - RESPONDENT
Miscellaneous Appeal No. 468 of 2001
Decided On : 22-11-2002
A.K. Mohanty, for the Appellant; T.K. Mohanty, for Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3, for the Respondent
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the provisions of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the instructions issued by the Tariff Advisory Committee extend the insurance coverage to gratuitous passengers carried in or upon a Motor Cycle.
Headnote:
Insurance - Motor Accident Claims - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 147 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 147 - The court discussed the provisions of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which requires the insurer to issue a policy against the death or bodily injury to any person carried in a vehicle. The court also referred to the circulars issued by the Tariff Advisory Committee, which stated that a comprehensive policy should cover liability to pillion riders treating them as occupants in the Motor Cycle and provide indemnity to such persons who are not carried for hire or reward.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased was a pillion rider on a scooter and sustained grievous injuries in an accident. The claimants filed a case seeking compensation. The main question was whether the pillion rider travelling gratuitously can be said to be covered under the 'Act only' Insurance Policy.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the deceased being a pillion rider was covered under the 'Act only' Insurance Policy as per the provisions of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the instructions issued by the Tariff Advisory Committee.
Issues: The main issue was whether the pillion rider travelling gratuitously can be said to be covered under the 'Act only' Insurance Policy.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the provisions of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the instructions issued by the Tariff Advisory Committee to determine that the deceased pillion rider was covered under the 'Act only' Insurance Policy.
Final Decision: The appeal by the Insurer was dismissed, and the court held the Insurer liable to pay compensation to the claimants.
JUDGMENT :
Pradipta Ray, J. - The present appeal has been preferred by the Insurer. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. against the judgment and award dated March 8, 2001, passed by the 1st. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mayurbhanj, in M.A.C.T. Misc. Case No. 61 of 1996 awarding compensation is favour of the deceased a pillion rider on a scooter and holding the Insurer liable to pay such compensation.
2. The main question urged by the Appellant in the present appeal is whether the pillion rider travelling gratuitously can be said to be covered under the "Act only" Insurance Policy"
3. The deceased Bijendra Khuntia was travelling as a pillion rider on a scooter bearing registration No. OSM 2917 driven by Sri Harihar Das the owner of the said scooter. They were going to Bisoi from Bangriposi. On Bamamghaty hill while the offending scooter was giving side to a vehicle coming from the opposite direction, the scooter dashed against a road side stone and the deceased was thrown on the road and sustained grievous injuries on his head and other parts of the body. The deceased was initially treated in Baripada Hospital, and. thereafter, removed to S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack. He ultimately succumbed to his injuries on the day following the date of the accident. At the time of death the deceased was working as a Senior Clerk under Orissa State Electricity Board and getting a monthly salary of Rs. 3.200/- The widow, son and the daughter of the deceased filed claim case before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, claiming a compensation of Rs. 2.00,000/-.
4. Mr. Mohanty, learned Advocate appearing for the Appellant-Insurance Company has referred to several decisions, namely; 1992 ACJ 851 (Ori) Jibanananda Mohanty v. Artatrana Misra and Ors.; 1995 ACJ 189 (Ori) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Ashok Kumar Acharya and Ors.; 1988 ACJ 270 (SC) National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Jugal Kishore and Ors.; 1988 ACJ (AP) Sada Nirmala and Ors. v. Indrapaul Singh and Anr. and 1989 ACJ 466 (P&H) Surjit Singh and Anr. v. Santosh Kumari and Ors.
5. Most of the aforementioned decisions were decided in the context of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. By dropping one of the clauses from the provisos to Section 95(1) of me Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 the Motor Vehicles Act of 1988 requires the Insurer to issue policy against the death or bodily injury to any person carried in a vehicle. Even before the enactment of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the Tariff Advisory Committee issued a circular dated June 2, 1986. intimating ail the insurance Companies that the standard Motor Cycle comprehensive policy should cover liability to pillion risers treating them as occupants in the Motor Cycle and provide indemnity to such persons who are net carried for hire or reward. After such instructions the Insurance Policy is to cover death or bodily injury to the person carried in or upon a Motor Cycle provided such person is not carried for hire or reward, in other words. The Insurance Coverage is extended to gratuitous passengers carried in or upon a Motor Cycle. The decision relief upon by Mr. Monanty are not applicable to the situation of the present case.
6. The learned Advocate appearing for the claimant-Respondents has referred to the following decisions to support the judgment of the Tribunal:
1. 1995 ACJ 888 (Ker) United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Appukuttan.
2. 1995 ACJ 1015 (Kar) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. K. Rajanna and Ors.
3. 1995 ACJ 1125 (HP) Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ved Prakash and Ors.
4. 1988 (I) OLR 144 Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Limited v. Santan Pradhan and Anr.
5. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satyanath Hazarika and Others,
6. 2000 ACJ 385 (Kar) Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Minaxi and Ors.
7. In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Appukuttan (supra) the division Bench of Kerala High Court distinguished the earlier decision of the same Court reported in 7989 ACJ 833 (Ker) K. Velunni v. Premalatha on the ground that Ve
