VERY IMPORTANT POINT
Under Section 147 of M.V. Act, 1988 (before 1994 amendment). This insurer will not be liable for paying compensation to the owner of the goods or his authorised representative on being carried in a goods vehicle when the vehicle meets with an accident and owner of the goods or his representative does or suffers any bodily injury.

Headnote:Motor Vehicles Act, 1988-Section 147 (Prior to amendment in 1994) = (Section 95 of M.V. Act, 1939)-Liability of Insurance Co.-Requirements of Policy and limits of liability-Whether the insurer is liable to pay compensation to the dependents of the deceased passenger while the deceased passenger was travelling in a goods vehicle and that vehicle met with an accident on account of which passenger died or suffered bodily injury? (No)-Decision of Satpal Singh s case 2000(1) SCC 237 on it whether requires reconsideration by a larger Bench-(Yes, it is overruled).
       Held : (Pattanaik, CJ) for himself and H.K. Sema and S.B. Sinha, JJ. with whom S.B. Sinha, J. adding a few words of his own in a separate concurring judgment).
       The conclusion is irresistible that prior to the aforesaid amendment Act of 1994, even if widest interpretation is given to the expression to any person it will not cover either the owner of the goods or his authorised representative being carried in the vehicle. The objects and reasons of clause 46 also states that it seeks to amend Section 147 to include owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle for the purposes of liability under the Insurance Policy. It is no doubt true that sometimes the legislature amends the law by way of amplification and clarification of an inherent position which is there in the statute, but a plain meaning being given to the words used in the statute, as it stood prior to its amendment of 1994 and as it stands subsequent to its amendment in 1994, and bearing in mind the objects and reasons engrafted in the amended provisions referred to earlier, it is difficult for us to construe that the expression including owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle which was added to the pre-existed expression injury to any person is either clarificatory or amplification of the pre-existing statute. On the other hand it clearly demonstrates that the legislature wanted to bring within the sweep of Section 147 and making it compulsory for the insurer to insure even in case of a goods vehicle, the owner of the goods or his authorised representative being carried in a goods vehicle when that vehicle met with an accident and the owner of the goods or his representative either dies or suffers bodily injury. The judgment of this Court in Satpal s case, therefore must be held to have not been correctly decided and the impugned judgment of the Tribunal as well as that of the High Court accordingly are set aside and these appeals are allowed. It is held that the insurer will not be liable for paying compensation to the owner of goods or his authorized representative on being carried in a goods vehicle when that vehicle meets with an accident and the owner of goods or his representative dies or suffers any bodily injury. (Para 10)

JUDGMENT

Pattanaik, C.J.I.-Leave granted in SLP (C) Nos. 12040, 12369 and 13159 of 2002.

2. The question that arises in this batch of appeals is whether the insurer is liable to pay compensation to the dependants of the deceased passenger, while the deceased passenger was traveling in a goods vehicle and that vehicle met with an accident, on account of which the passenger died or suffered bodily injury. Originally, when the bunch of appeals was being heard, a Bench of this court by order dated 27th March, 2001, came to the conclusion that all the appeals fall in three categories - category (i) being those cases which are covered by the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939; category (ii) are the cases which are covered by the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, prior to the amendment of 1994; category (iii) are those cases which fall after the amendment of 1994. When the matters were finally heard, a Bench delivered judgment in respect of cases under category (i) and (iii) above on 17th August, 2001. But so far as cases falling under category (ii) namely which are covered under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, prior to its amendment in 1994, it was felt that the decision of the court in Satpal Singh s case, [2000 (1) SCC 237], requires reconsideration by a larger Bench and that is how this bunch of appeals had been placed before a three judge Bench. This, in turn, necessitates interpretation of the provisions in Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (herein after referred to as the Act ) as it stood prior to its amendment in 1994. It may be stated that the provisions of Section 147 of the Act correspond to Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.

3. Before considering the rival submissions, it would be appropriate to notice the provisions of Sec. 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, Sec. 147 of the Act as it stood prior to its amendment of 1994 and the provision as it stands now after the amendment of 1994.

4. Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 reads as under:

95. 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 authorized insurer or by a co-operative society allowed under Section 108 to transact the business of an insurer, and

(b) insures the person or classes of persons specified in the policy to the extent 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 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:

Provided that a policy shall not be required-

(i) to cover liability in respect of the death, arising out of and in the course of his employment, of the employee of a person insured by the policy or in respect of bodily injury sustained by such an employee arising out of and in the course of his employment other than a liability arising under the Workmen s Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923), in respect of the death of, or bodily injury to, any such employee-

(a) engaged in driving the vehicle, or

(b) if it is a public service vehicle, engaged as a conductor of the vehicle or in examining tickets on the vehicle, or

(ii) except where the vehicle is a vehicle in which passengers are carried for hire or reward or by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment, to cover liability in respect of the death of or bodily injury to persons being carried in or upon or entering or mounting or alighting from the vehicl

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2002 Supreme(SC) 1179

Cases Referred (2)