Back
2004(2) JLJ 127
(SUPREME COURT)
V.N. Khare, C.J.I., S.B. Sinha and Dr. A.R. Lakshmanan, JJ.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Baljit Kaur and others
Civil Appeal Nos. 16-18 of 2004 and 20 to 28 of 2004; arising out
of order of Punjab and Haryana High Court passed in F.A.O. No.
1852 of 2001;
Decided on 6.1.2004.
The question that arises for consideration in these appeals is whether an insurance policy in respect of a goods vehicle would also cover gratuitous passengers in view of the legislative amendment in 1994 to section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. [Para 2
The effect of the 1994 amendment on section 147 is unambiguous. Where earlier the words "any person" could be held not to include the owner of the goods or his authorized representative travelling in the goods vehicle, Parliament has now made it clear that such a construction is no longer possible. The scope of this rationale does not, however, extend to cover the class of cases where gratuitous passengers for whom no insurance policy was envisaged, and for whom no insurance premium was paid, employed the goods vehicle as a medium of conveyance. [Para 11
(2) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988-S.2--changes effected in definition of ‘goods vehicle‘, ‘public service vehicle‘ and ‘stage carriage‘ vis-a-vis 1939 Act--concept of any goods carriage carrying any passenger was not contemplated n doctrine of suppression of mischief rule shall apply to such situation.
The changes effected in the 1988 Act vis-a-vis the 1939 Act as regards definitions of "goods vehicles", "public service vehicle" and "stage carriage" have also a bearing on the subject• inasmuch as the concept of any goods carriage carrying any passenger or any other person was not contemplated.
In a situation of this nature, the doctrine of suppression of mischief rule as adumbrated in Heydon‘s case (1584) 3 Co Rep 7a = 76 ER 637 shall apply. Such an amendment was made by Parliament consciously. Having regard to the definition of "goods carriage" vis-a-vis "public service vehicle", it is clear that whereas the goods carriage carrying any passenger is not contemplated under the 1988 Act as the same must be used solely for carrying the goods. (1584)3 Co Rep 7a, AIR 1996 SC 1963, AIR 1955 SC 661 and AIR 1990 SC 781 relied on. Halsbury‘s Law of England Vol. 44(1) 4th Edn. Para 1474 discussed and relied on. [Paras 13 to 16
(3) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988--S. 147(1) (b) (i) (as amended in 1994) -- addition of words ‘including owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle‘--was not needed as words ‘any person‘ could have covered each and every person travelling in goods vehicle.
By reason of the 1994 amendment what was added is "including owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle". The liability of the owner of the vehicle to insure it compulsorily, thus, by reason of the aforementioned amendment, included only the owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle besides the third parties. The intention of Parliament, therefore, could not have been that the words "any person" occurring in section 147 would cover all persons who were travelling in a goods carriage in any capacity whatsoever. If such was the intention, there was no necessity of Parliament to carry out an amendment inasmuch as the expression "any person" contained in sub-clause (i) of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 147 would have included the owner of the goods or his authorised representative besides the passengers who are gratuitous or otherwise. (2003) 2 SCC 223 relied on. [Para 17
(4) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988--Ss. 168 and 149(2) -- insurer not found liable -- may be directed to pay the amount to claimants and recover the same from owner and driver of vehicle in same proceeding by way of execution. [Para 21
(5) Interpretation of Statutes--Court of law -- should eschew that interpretation which renders the words of any statute superfluous and serves to negate its true import. [Para 11
¼1½ eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1988&/kkjk 147 ¼lu~ 1994 esa ;Fkk la‘kksf/kr½&‘‘kCn ^fdlh O;fDr*&eky ;ku esa fu%‘kqYd ;k=h lfEefyr ugha&la‘kks/ku dk çHkko dsoy ;g gS fd eky ds ;ku esa tk jgs eky dss Lokeh vFkok mlds çkf/kÑr çfrfuf/k dks lfEefyr dj fy;k x;k gS&vUFkk og bl mica/k ds v/khu ^fdlh O;fDr* ds :i esa nkok ugha dj ldrs FksA bu vihyksa esa fopkjkFkZ mn~Hkwr ç‘u gS fd D;k eky ;ku ds laca/k esa chek ikfylh ls] eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1988 dh /kkjk 147 esa lu~ 1994 esa fd, x, fo/kk;h la‘kks/ku dh n`f"V ls fu%‘kqYd ;k=h Hkh vkPNkfnr gksaxs\ ¼iSjk 2½ vfHkfu/kkZfjr % /kkjk 147 esa lu~ 1994 ds la‘kks/ku dk çHkko vlafnX/kkFkhZ gSA tgk¡ iwoZ esa vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k tk ldrk Fkk fd ‘‘kCn ^fdlh O;fDr* es eky ;ku esa tk jgk eky dk Lokeh vFkok mldk çkf/kÑr çfrfuf/k lfEefyr ugha gSa] lkaln~ us vc Li"V dj fn;k gS fd ,slk vFkkZUo;u vc laHko ugha gSSA rFkkfi] ;g rdkZ/kkj ml oxZ ds ekeys vkPNkfnr djus rd foLr`r ugha gSa tgk¡ mu fu%‘kqYd ;kf=;ksa us] ftuds fy, dksbZ Hkh chek ikylh ifjdfYir ugha Fkh rFkk ftuds fy, chek çhfe;e lanÙk ugha fd;k x;k Fkk] eky ;ku dk ifjogu ds ek/;e dh Hkk¡fr mi;ksx fd;kA ¼iSjk 11½ ¼2½ eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1988&/kkjk 2&lu~ 1939 ds vf/kfu;e dh rqyuk esa] ^eky ;ku*] lkoZtfud lsok ;ku* rFkk eaftyh xkM+h* dh ifjHkk"kk esa fd, x, ifjorZu&fdlh Hkh eky ;ku }kjk dksbZ Hkh ;k=h ys tk, tkus dh ladYiuk vuq/;kr ugha&,slh fLFkfr dks fjf"V tkus ds fu;e dk fl)kar ykxw gksxkA ^^eky ;ku**] ^^lkoZtfud lsok ;ku** rFkk ^^eaftyh xkM+h** dh ifjHkk"kkvksa ds laca/k esa lu~ 1939 ds vf/kfu;e dh rqyuk esa lu~ 1988 ds vf/kfu;e esa fd, x, ifjorZu dk Hkh bl fo"k; ls laca/k gaS D;ksafd fdlh Hkh eky xkM+h esa fdlh Hkh ;k=h vFkok fdlh Hkh vU; O;fDr ds ys tk, tkus dh ladYiuk vuq/;kr ugha FkhA bl çdkj dh fLFkfr esa] gsMu dss ekeys ¿ ¼1584½ 3 lhvks vkj bZ ih 7,&76bZ vkj 637À esa ;Fkk çLrqr fjf"V fNik, tkus ds fu;e dk fl)kar ykxw gksxkA ,slk la‘kks/ku laln~ }kjk lpsrurk ls fd;k x;k FkkA ^^lkoZtfud lsok ;ku* ds lEeq[k ^^ekyxkM+h** dh ifjHkk"kk /;ku esa j[krs gq, Li"V gS fd lu~ 1988 ds vf/kfu;e ds v/khu eky xkM+h esa ;k=h ys tk;k tkuk vuq/;kr ugha gSa D;kssafd mldk mi;ksx dsoy eky ys tkus ds fy, gh fd;k tkuk gksrk gSA ¼1584½ 3 lhvks vkj bZ ih 7,] , vkb vkj 1996 ,l lh 1963] , vkb vkj 1955 ,l lh 661 rFkk , vkb vkj 1990 ,l lh 781 voyafcrA gSYl~cjh Ñr yk vkQ baXySaM ftYn 44¼1½ prqFkZ laLdj.k iSjk 1474 foosfpr rFkk voyafcrA ¼iSjk 13 ls 16½ ¼3½ eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1988&/kkjk 147¼1½ ¼[k½¼1½ ¼lu~ 1994 esa ;Fkkla‘kksf/kr½&‘‘kCn ^;ku esa tk jgs eky dss Lokeh ;k mlds çkf/kÑr çfrfuf/k dks ‘kkfey djrs gq,* tksM+s tkuk&vko‘;d ugha Fkk D;ksafd ‘‘kCn ^fdlh O;fDr* ls eky ;ku esa ;k=k djus okyk çR;sd O;fDr vkPNkfnr gks ldrk FkkA lu~ 1994 ds la‘kks/ku }kjk tks tksM+k x;k og gSa] ^^;ku esa tk jgs eky ds Lokeh ;k mlds çkf/kÑr çfrfuf/k dks ‘kkfey djrs gq,**A bl çdkj] iwoksZDr la‘kks/ku ds dkj.k] ;ku dk vfuok;Z chek djkus ds ;ku ds Lokeh ds nkf;Ro esa] ijO;fDr ds vfrfjDr dsoy ;ku esa tk jgk eky dk Lokeh vFkok mldk çkf/kÑr çfrfuf/k lfEefyr gSA vr% laln~ dk vk‘k; ;g ugha gks ldrk Fkk fd /kkjk 147 esa vkus okys ‘‘kCnksa ^^fdlh O;fDr** ls og lc O;fDr vkPNkfnr gksaxs tks fdlh Hkh gSfl;r ls eky xkM+h esa tk jgs gksaA ;fn ;g vk‘k; gksrk rc laln }kjk la‘kks/ku fd;k tkuk vko‘;d gh ugha Fkk D;ksafd /kkjk 147 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds [kaM ¼[k½ ds mi[kaM ¼1½ esa varfoZ"V vfHkO;fDr ^^fdlh O;fDr** esa fu%‘kqYd ;k vU;Fkk ;kf=;ksa ds vfrfjDr eky dk Lokeh ;k mldk çkf/kÑr çfrfuf/k lfEefyr gksrkA ¼2003½ 2 ,l lh lh 223 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 17½ ¼4½ eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1988&/kkjk 168 rFkk 149¼2½&chekdrkZ nk;h fu"df"kZr ugha&nkosnkjksa dks jde lanÙk djus rFkk mlh dk;Zokgh esa fu"iknu ds ek/;e ls ;ku dssss Lokeh vkSj pkyd ls mls olwyus dk funs‘k fn;k tk ldrk gSA ¼iSjk 21½ ¼5½ fof/k dk fuoZpu&Uk;ky;&ml fuoZpu ls nwj jguk pkfg, ftlls fdlh dkuwu ds ‘‘kCn vuko‘;d gks tkrs gksa rFkk tks mldk okLrfod vk‘k; udkjus esa lgk;d gksrk gksA
Khare, C.J.I. -- 1. Leave granted.
2. The question that arises for consideration in these appeals is whether an insurance policy in respect of a goods vehicle would also cover gratuitous passengers in view of the legislative amendment in 1994 to section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
3. The first respondent herein preferred a claim petition for compensation before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana (hereinafter referred to as "the Claims Tribunal"), in view of the death of her sixteen-year-old son, Sukhwinder Singh, due to the allegedly reckless driving by the second respondent and driver of the goods vehicle, bearing No. PB-10U-8937, on 19.2.1999. It. was found by the Claims Tribunal that the victim, who was returning in the truck from a marriage ceremony, died as a result of the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the goods vehicle, the second respondent herein. It was an admitted fact that the said vehicle was insured with the appellant Insurance Company.
4. The Claims Tribunal relying upon the decision of this Court in New India Assurance Co. v. Satpal Singh [(2000) 1 SCC 237] accepted the claim petition and rejected the contention of the appellant Insurance Company that the vehicle concerned being a goods vehicle, it would not have to incur any liability with respect to passengers transported in the vehicle. It further directed the appellant to pay an amount of Rs. 1,32,000 as compensation, with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of application. The High Court upheld the verdict of the Claims Tribunal• on appeal, with the further direction that in the event the owner, the third respondent herein, had committed any breach, the appellant insurer would be entitled to recover the amount of compensation from him.
5. It may be noticed at the outset that the judgment rendered in Satpal Singh case [(2000) 1 SCC 237] has been subsequently reversed by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani [(2003) 2 SCC 223] which was followed in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Devireddy Kanda Reddy [(2003) 2 SCC 339].
6. Reference in this connection may also be made to National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ajit Kumar JT (2003) 7 SC 520.
7. In the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani (supra) it was held that the previous decision in Satpal Singh case (supra) was incorrectly rendered, and that the words "any person" as used in section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, would not include passengers in the goods vehicle, but would rather be confined to the legislative intent to provide for third-party risk. The question in the subsequent judgment in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Devireddy Kanda Reddy (supra) involved, as in the present case, the liability of the insurance company in the event of death caused to a gratuitous passenger travelling in a goods vehicle. The Court held that the Tribunal and the High Court were not justified in placing reliance upon Satpal Singh case (supra) in view of its reversal by Asha Rani (supra) and that, accordingly, the insurer would not be liable to pay compensation to the family of the victim who was travelling in a goods vehicle.
8. It was contended by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second and third respondents, the driver and owner of the vehicle respectively, that the decision in Asha Rani case (supra) and Konda Reddy case (supra) were delivered with respect to the position prevailing prior to the amendment of section 147 by the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1994. As such, the effect of the legislative amendment was not in question in the above cases, and therefore, the law laid down by the these decisions would not be considered as binding law in view of coming into force of the said amendment. Since the accident in the present instance occurred in 1999, this Court would now have to consider afresh the impact of the 1994 amendment, and could not consider itself circumscribed by the aforementioned decis
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
