Back
2007 Supreme(MP) 922
2008(1) JLJ 249
(FULL BENCH)
A.K. Patnaik, C.J., S.S. Jha and A.M. Sapre, JJ.
Sunita Lokhande (Smt.) and others v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and others
Miscellaneous Appeal No.2461 of 1999 (Jabalpur) : on reference by Division Bench ; Decided on 19.9.2007.
Subodh Kathar for appellants;
Anoop Nair for respondent No.1;
S.K. Rao with Sanjay Agrawal, Amicus Curiae.
Headnote:(1) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -- Ss.147 and 147(1)(b) -- provisions -- do not require to assume risk for death or bodily injury to owner of vehicle -- insurance company, in absence of special policy covering such risk, would not be liable if owner of vehicle suffers injury or death.
Before the Division Bench of the present MA, the counsel for the Insurance Company cited inter alia the decision of the Supreme Court in Dhanraj v. New India Assurance Company Ltd. and another [2005(1) Vidhi Bhasvar 203=2004 AIR SCW 5438=(2004)8 SCC 553], and contended that the law laid down , by the Division Bench in the case of Jamna Bai (supra), requires reconsideration in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Dhanraj v. New India Assurance Company Limited and another (supra). The Division Bench passed an order dated 8.11.2004 taking a prima facie view that the decision of the Division Bench rendered in the case of Jamna Bai (supra), requires reconsideration by the Full Bench and framed following questions to be answered by the Full Bench:
"(a) Whether the owner can claim compensation in respect of an injury sustained by him in a motor accident, unless a premium in respect of personal injury has been taken by way of special insurance contract?
(b) Can the legal heirs of the deceased owner put forth the claim for compensation in the absence of special policy?
(c) Can the owner, under any circumstance, be treated or deemed to be treated as a third party?
(d) Whether own damage would cover the damage to the person of the owner or it is confined to the properties of the vehicle owner?" [Para 4
Held: Section 147 of the Act does not require the Insurance Company to assume risk for death or bodily injury to the owner of the vehicle and therefore the Insurance Company under the insurance policy which covers only liability under section 147 of the Act would not be liable for death or bodily injury to the owner of the vehicle.
The additional premium was not paid in respect of the entire risk of death or bodily injury of the owner of the vehicle. If that be so, section 147(1)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, which in no uncertain terms covers a risk of a third party only could be attracted in the present case. 2005(1) Vidhi Bhasvar 203 (SC) and 2007 ACJ 818 (SC) followed. [Paras 6 & 7
(2) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -- Ss. 147 and 168 -- owner of the vehicle/insured dying in accident -- his heirs cannot claim compensation for his death -- this risk is not covered in absence of additional premium. 2005(1) Vidhi Bhasvar 203 (SC) followed. [Para 9
(3) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -- Ss.145(g) and 147(1)(b) -- ‘third party‘ -- means other than contracting parties to the insurance policy -insured is not a third party. 2004(1) JLJ 110 (FB) relied on. [Para 10
(4) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -- Ss.157 and 145(g) -- owner of vehicle and insured -- is one and same party -- thus owner of vehicle cannot be a ‘third party‘. [Para 11
(5) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -- Ss. 147(1) -- ‘own damage‘ -- is to be read with express terms and conditions of insurance policy -- insurer when liable against owner of the vehicle.
The expression "own damage" will have to be read along with the express terms and conditions of the insurance policy and if on a reading of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, it is found that the premium that is paid for "own damage" covers only damage to the property of the insured and not to injury to the person of the owner or life of the owner, then obviously the insurer would not be liable for compensation for injury or death of the owner, but if on a reading of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy it is found that additional premium has been paid not only for damage to property but also for injury or death of the owner then the insurance company will also be liable for compensation for injury or death of the owner in addition to loss of property. 2005(1) Vidhi Bhasvar 203 (SC) followed. [Para 13
¼1½ eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1988 && /kkjk 147 rFkk 147¼1½¼[k½ && mica/k && ;ku ds Lokeh dh e`R;q vFkok ‘kkjhfjd {kfr dk tksf[ke mBkus dh vis{kk ugha gS] ,slk tksf[ke vkPNkfnr djrs gq, fo‘ks"k ikfylh ds vHkko esa chek daiuh nk;h ugha gksxh ;fn ;ku ds Lokeh dks {kfr igq¡prh gS ;k mldh e`R;q gksrh gSA
izLrqr izdh.kZ vihy dh [kaM U;k;ihB ds le{k chek daiuh ds dkmUlsy us vU; ckrksa ds lkFk&lkFk /kujkt fo- U;w bafM;k ,‘;ksajsUl daiuh fy- rFkk ,d vU; ¿ 2005¼1½ fof/k HkkLoj 203¾2004 , vkb vkj ,l lh MCY;w 5438¾ ¼2004½8 ,l lh lh 553À] esa mPpre U;k;ky; dk fofu‘p; izks)r fd;k rFkk izfrokn fd;k fd tequk ckbZ ¼iwoksZDr½ ds ekeys esa [kaM U;k;ihB }kjk vf/kdfFkr fof/k ij] /kujkt fo- U;w bafM;k ,‘;ksjsUl daiuh fy- rFkk ,d vU; ¼iwoksZDRk½ esa mPpre U;k;ky; dk fofuJ; n`f"V esa j[krs gq, iqufoZpkj visf{kr gSA [kaM U;k;ihB }kjk izFke-‘V~;k n`f"Vdks.k viukrs gq, vkns‘k fnukad 8-11-2004 ikfjr fd;k x;k fd teuk ckbZ ds ekeys ¼iwoksZDRk½ esa [kaM U;k;ihB }kjk fn, x, fofu‘p; dk iw.kZ U;k;ihB }kjk iqufoZpkj visf{kr gS rFkk iw.kZ U;k;ihB }kjk mÙkj fn, tkus ds fy, fuEufyf[kr iz‘u fojfpr fd, %
**¼d½ D;k eksVj nq?kZVuk esa mls gqbZ {kfr ds laca/k esa Lokeh izfrdj dk nkok dj ldrk gS] tc rd fd fo‘ks"k chek lafonk ds }kjk O;fDrxr {kfr ds laca/k esa izhfe;e ugha fy;k x;k gks \
¼[k½ D;k e`r Lokeh ds fof/k okfjl fo‘ks"k ikfylh ds vHkko es izfrdj dk nkok dj ldr gS \
¼x½ D;k] fdlh Hkh ifjfLFkfr esa] Lokeh ijO;fDr le>k ;k ekuk tk ldrk gS \
¼?k½ D;k Lo;a dk uqdlku Lokeh ds ‘kjhj ds uqdlku dks vkPNkfnr djsxk vFkok ;g ;ku ds Lokeh dh laifÙk rd lhfer gS\** ¿ iSjk 4À
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 147 es chek daiuh }kjk ;ku ds Lokeh dh e`R;q vFkok ‘kkjhfjd {kfr dk tksf[ke fy;k tkuk visf{kr ugha gS rFkk] blfy,] ml chek ikfylh ds v/khu tks ek= vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 147 dk nkf;Ro vkPNkfnr djrh gS] chek daiuh ;ku ds Lokeh dh e`R;q vFkok ‘kkjhfjd {kfr ds fy, nk;h ugha gksxhA
;ku ds Lokeh dh e`R;q vFkok ‘kkjhfjd {kfr ds laiw.kZ tksf[ke ds laca/k esa vfrfjDr izhfe;e lanÙk ugha fd;k x;k FkkA ;fn ,slk gS rks izLrqr ekeys esa dsoy eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 147¼1½¼[k½ vkd`"V gksxh tks fd lqfuf‘pr ‘‘kCnksa esa ijO;fDr dk tksf[ke vkPNkfnr djrh gSA 2005¼1½ fof/k HkkLoj 203 ¼mPpre U;k-½ rFkk 2007 , lh ts 818 ,l lh vuqlfjrA
¿ iSjk 6 ,oa 7À
¼2½ eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1988 && /kkjk 146 rFkk 168 && ;ku dk Lokeh@chfer nq?kZVuk easa e`r && mlds okfjl mldh e`R;q ds izfrdj ds fy, nkok ugha dj ldrs && ;g tksf[ke vfrfjDr izhfe;e ds vHkko esa vkPNkfnr ugha gSA 2005¼1½ fof/k HkkLoj 203 ¼mPpre U;k-½ vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 9À
¼3½ eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1988 && /kkjk 145¼N½ rFkk 147¼1½¼[k½ && *ijO;fDr* && vFkZ gS chek ikfylh lafonk djus okys iddkjksa ls fHké O;fDr && chfer O;fDr *ijO;fDr* ugha gSA 2004¼1½ ts ,y ts 110 ¼iw.kZ U;k;ihB½ voyafcrA ¿ iSjk 10À
¼4½ eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1988 && /kkjk 157 rFkk 145¼N½ && ;ku dk Lokeh rFkk chfer && ,d&gh O;fDr gS && blfy, ;ku dk Lokeh *ijO;fDr* ugha gks ldrkA
¿ iSjk 11À
¼5½ eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1988 && /kkjk 145¼1½ && *Lo;a dk uqdlku* && chek ikfylh ds vfHkO;Dr fuc/akuksa rFkk ‘krksZa ds lkFk i<+k tkuk gksrk gS && chekdrkZ dc ;ku ds Lokeh ds fo#) nk;h gSA
vfHkO;fDr **Lo;a dk uqdlku** chek ikfylh ds vfHkO;Dr fuca/kuksa rFkk ‘krksZa ds lkFk i<+k tkuk gksxk rFkk ;fn chek ikfylh ds fuca/kuksa rFkk ‘krksZa ds ikB ls ;g ik;k tkrk gS fd og izhfe;e tks *Lo;a ds uqdlku* ds fy, lanÙk fd;k x;k gS chfer dh laifÙk ek= dks vkPNkfnr djrk gS] Lokeh ds ‘kjhj dks igq¡ph {kfr vFkok Lokeh ds thou dks ugha] rc lqLi"Vr;k chekdrkZ Lokeh dh {kfr vFkok e`R;q ds fy, izfrdj ds fy, nk;h ugha gksxk] fdarq ;fn chek ikfylh ds fuca/kuksa rFkk ‘krksZsa ds ikB ls ;g ik;k tkrk gS fd u dsoy laifÙk ds uqdlku ds fy,] vfirq Lokeh dh {kfr vFkok e`R;q ds fy, Hkh vfrfjDr izhfe;e lanÙk fd;k x;k gS rc chek daiuh laifÙk dh gkfu fd vfrjDr Lokeh dh {kfr vFkok e`R;q ds fy, izfrdj dh Hkh nk;h gksxhA 2005¼1½ fof/k HkkLoj 203 ¼mPpre U;k-½ vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 13À
Patnaik, C.J. -- 1. This is reference made by a Division Bench of this Court in this MA for reconsideration of the decision rendered by another Division Bench in Oriental Insurance Company v. Jamna Bai and others [2001(4) MPHT 293].
2. The facts of the case in the miscellaneous appeal which necessitated the reference are that on 3.5.1997, when Bhanwar Lal Lokhande was travelling in a truck bearing registration No. CIB-3490, the truck turned turtle and. in the accident Bhanwar Lal Lokhande sustained injuries and eventually died. The legal heirs of the deceased Bhanwar Lal Lokhande instituted Claim Case No.14/97 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Betul claiming an amount of Rs.7,77,500/- as compensation against the New Indian Assurance Company Ltd., which had insured the truck. The truck was owned by Bhanwar Lal Lokhande and his brother Umesh Kumar Lokhande and therefore the Insurance Company contended before the Tribunal that the Insurance Company was not liable to indemnify the owners of the truck or their legal heirs and that the Insurance Company was only liable under the policy read with section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") to pay compensation to the third party. The Tribunal upheld the contention of the Insurance Company and dismissed the claim petition.
3. Aggrieved, the legal heirs of Bhanwar Lal Lokhande, filed MA No.2461/1999 before this Court. Before the Division Bench hearing MA, the appellants relied upon the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Jamna Bai and others (supra). In Jamna Bai's case, the facts were that the deceased was the owner of tractor along with Apa. The deceased, however, was not traveling in the tractor insured with the Insurance Company. The tractor was being driven by a driver appointed by Apa and when the tractor was being taken towards the land, the deceased was injured. On these facts, the Division Bench held that the deceased fell within the definition of "third party". The Division Bench further found that under the policy of Insurance of that case, besides normal premium, the deceased had paid Rs.150/- against "own damages". The Division Bench held that the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation on the death of deceased Umrao Singh.
4. Before the Division Bench of the present MA, the counsel for the Insurance Company cited inter alia the decision of the Supreme Court in Dhanraj v. New India Assurance Company Ltd. and another [2005(1) Vidhi Bhasvar 203=2004 AIR SCW 5438=(2004) 8 SCC 553], and contended that the law laid down by the Division Bench in the case of Jamna Bai (supra), requires reconsideration in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Dhanraj v. New India Assurance Company Limited and another (supra). The Division Bench passed an order dated 8.11.2004 taking a prima facie view that the decision of the Division Bench rendered in the case of Jamna Bai (supra), requires reconsideration by the Full Bench and framed following questions to be answered by the Full Bench:
"(a) Whether the owner can claim compensation in respect of an injury sustained by him in a motor accident, unless a premium in respect of personal injury has been taken by way of special insurance contract?
(b) Can the legal heirs of the deceased owner put forth the claim for compensation in the absence of special policy?
(c) Can the owner under any circumstances be treated or deemed to be treated as a third party?
(d) Whether own damage would cover the damage to the person of the owner or it is confined to the properties of the vehicle owner?"
5. We have heard Mr. Subodh Kathar, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Anoop Nair, learned counsel for the respondent No.1. None has appeared for the other respondents. We have also heard Mr. S.K. Rao and Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, who assisted the Court as amicus curiae.
6. Under question (a) referred by the Division Bench, we are required to answer whethe
