Advocates:
M. K. DUA

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 1 of 4

CASE NO.:

Appeal (civil) 5147 of 2003

PETITIONER:

Ramashray Singh

RESPONDENT:

Vs.

New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22/07/2003

BENCH:

Ruma Pal & B.N.Srikrishna.

JUDGMENT:

J U D G M E N T

(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 20600 Of 2002)

RUMA PAL, J

Leave granted.

The appellant is the owner of a vehicle, described as a

"trekker", in which passengers are carried for hire. He

employed Shashi Bhushan Singh as a "khalasi" of the vehicle.

On 21.10.1998 the vehicle met with an accident as a result of

which Shashi Bhushan Singh died. The legal heirs of the

deceased employee filed a claim in the Workmen’s

Compensation Court against the appellant, as the owner of the

vehicle, and against the respondent insurance company. The

Workmen’s Compensation Court held that the vehicle had been

comprehensively insured with the respondent and that since the

accident had occurred during the period of insurance, the

insurance company was liable to pay the compensation on

account of the death of the employee. The respondent was,

therefore, directed to deposit the compensation determined

under the provisions of The Workmen’s Compensation Act,

1923.

The decision was challenged by the respondent before

the High Court at Patna under Article 226. The High Court

allowed the writ petition. It held that in the absence of any

special contract between the appellant and the respondent , the

rights of the parties were governed by statute which did not

require the respondent to cover liability in respect of an

accident to a khalasi. The statute in question is the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 (referred to hereinafter as the Act).

The appellant has impugned the decision of the High

Court before this Court, primarily on the ground that the High

Court had misconstrued the provisions of the Act and in

particular clause (b) of subsection (1) of section 147. It was

contended that the insurance policy expressly covered the

death or injury to the khalasi. Our attention was drawn to the

insurance certificate where under the heading "Particulars of

the vehicle insured" there is a column which refers to "Seating

capacity including driver and cleaner". Under this sub-head the

figure "13+ 1" has been inserted. A cleaner, as accepted by

both parties before us, would include a khalasi. The appellant

submitted that he had paid premium on the basis of 13+1 to

cover the liability in question.

The respondent has refuted the claim that any additional

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 2 of 4

premium was paid to cover the risk pertaining to a khalasi. It is

contended that in terms of the insurance policy, as also under

the provisions of Section 147 (1) (b), no employee of the

insured apart from the driver was covered.

Chapter XI of the Act covers the subject ’Insurance of

Motor Vehicles Against Third Party Risks’ under Section 146(1)

of which no person shall use a motor vehicle in public unless

there is a valid policy of insurance which complies with the

requirements of the Chapter. The mandatory requirements of

such insurance policy have been provided in Section 147.

The relevant extract of Section 147 is reproduced with

emphasis on the words on which the appellant’s case rests :

"Section 147: Requirements of policies

and limits of liability. â\200\223 (1) In order to comply

with the requirements of this Chapter, a policy

of insurance must be a policy which â\200\223

(a) xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

(b) insures the person or classes of persons

specified in the policy to the extent specified in

sub-section (2) â\200\223

(i) against any liability which may be

incurred by him in respect of the death of

or bodily injury to any person or damage

to any property of a third party caused by

or arising out of the use of the vehicle in

a public