SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2003 Supreme(All) 1655

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
RAJESH KUMAR
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD - Appellant
Versus
ASTARUL NISSA - Respondents
F. A. F. O. 676 Of 2003
Decided On : 08/08/2003

Advocates Appeared:
A.K.Trivedi, J.AZMI, K.S.Amist, N.K.SRIVASTAV, PRATIMA SRIVASTAV

The judgment established the wider connotation of 'use' of a motor vehicle and the interpretation of the words 'caused by' and 'arising out of' in section 147(1)(b)(i) of the Act.

Headnote:

liability - motor accidents - section 147 of the Act - 147. 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; and (b) insures 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, including owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle 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.

Fact of the Case:

The case involved an appeal by an insurance company against a judgment and award of compensation for a fatal accident involving a bus and a tractor-trolley. The appellant disputed liability under section 147 of the Act, arguing that the death was not caused by the insured vehicle.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the accident arose out of the use of both the bus and the tractor-trolley, and therefore, the liability was correctly shared between the insurance companies. The court relied on the interpretation of the words 'caused by' and 'arising out of' in section 147(1)(b)(i) and the wider connotation of 'use' of a motor vehicle as established in previous judgments.

Issues: The main issue was the interpretation of section 147 of the Act and the liability of the insurance company in a fatal accident involving multiple vehicles.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the legal provisions in section 147 of the Act and the application of previous judgments to establish the wider connotation of 'use' of a motor vehicle.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, affirming the liability of the insurance company under section 147 of the Act.

RAJES KUMAR, J.


( 1 ) THE present appeal has been filed by United India Insurance co. Ltd. , the insurer of tractor-trolley No. UP 54-0055 against the judgment and award dated 28. 10. 1995 passed by the 1st additional District Judge/motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Mau by which a sum of rs. 1,35,000 was awarded towards compensation, out of which the appellant has been held liable for 50 per cent.

( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case which has been finally concluded by the Tribunal after the statement of the witnesses and the other evidence which have not been disputed now by the appellant are that on 27. 7. 1990 at about 2. 45 p. m. bus No. UTH 9443 coming from Varanasi was driven rashly and dashed with tractor-trolley No. UP 54-0055 which was standing on the patri adjacent to the road near police lines. As a result of which, the trolley overturned and fell on Munir Ahmad causing his death. At that time, Munir Ahmad was 43 years, 7 months old. The Claims Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 1,35,000 to the dependants. The liability of appellant was fixed 50 per cent of the total amount of compensation. Being aggrieved by the order of the Claims Tribunal fixing 50 per cent liability on the appellant, the present appeal has been filed.

( 3 ) I have heard Mr. K. S. Amist, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. Pratima srivastava, holding brief of Mr. N. K. Srivastava and Mr. A. K. Trivedi, holding brief of Mr. J. Azmi, learned counsel for the respondents.

( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant has not disputed the fact of the accident and have also not disputed the quantum of the compensation. His argument is that the death was not caused by the tractor-trolley and was caused by the bus and, therefore, the appellant was not liable for compensation under the provisions of section 147 of the Act. He contended that the tractor-trolley was standing and as a result of being dashed by the bus, the trolley turned and fell on the deceased, Munir Ahmad. He submitted that if the bus would not have been dashed, there would not be any involvement of the tractor-trolley in the accident. He submitted that the liability of the insurance company under section 147 would only be in the circumstances when accident is caused by the vehicle insured by the insurance company. For the meaning words caused by used in section 147 he relied on the judgment of the Supreme court in the case of Shivaji Dayanu Patil v. Vatschala Uttam More, 1991 0 ACJ 777 (SC ). In reply to the above submission Ms. Pratima Srivastava holding brief on behalf of respondent No. 15, National Insurance co. Ltd. , the insurer of the bus, contended that accident was caused both by the bus and by the tractor-trolley and, therefore, the sharing of the liability between both insurance companies by the Tribunal was correct. She submitted that the deceased died on account of overturn of the tractor-trolley. Therefore, the accident was caused by the tractor-trolley, which was standing on the patri.

( 5 ) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order of the tribunal in my opinion, the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant are not acceptable. Section 147 (1) reads as follows:"147. 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; and (b) insures 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, including owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle 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






Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top