TMI Blog2008 (2) TMI 855X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 , was summarily dismissed. 3. The facts necessary to be noticed for the present appeal are that the tractor bearing Registration Number PB-070-1026 was owned by three brothers, namely, Mahinder Singh, Joginder Singh and Jagdev Singh. Ajay Kumar son of Mahinder Singh was driving the said vehicle on 18.10.2000. He did not have a driving licence. The accident occurred at about 7.00 pm on the aforementioned date. The deceased, Baldev Singh, was said to have been travelling on the mudguard of the said tractor which was going to Hoshiarpur loaded with safeda wood. Owing to rash and negligent driving by Ajay Kumar, the deceased fell down and came underneath the said tractor. A claim petition was filed before the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal on 19.07.2001 by the heirs and legal representatives of the said deceased. Appellant, in its written statement, inter alia, raised the following contentions : (1) The deceased being a passenger in the said tractor, was not a third party within the meaning of the provisions of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act. (2) As he was travelling on the mudguard of the tractor in breach of condit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is under a statutory obligation to get it compulsorily insured, the defence of an insurance company is limited. Sub-section (2) of Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 reads thus : (2) No sum shall be payable by an insurer under sub-section (1) in respect of any judgment or award unless, before the commencement of the proceedings in which the judgment of award is given the insurer had notice through the Court or, as the case may be, the Claims Tribunal of the bringing of the proceedings, or in respect of such judgment or award so long as execution is stayed thereon pending an appeal; and an insurer to whom notice of the bringing of any such proceedings is so given shall be entitled to be made a party thereto and to defend the action on any of the following grounds, namely:- (a) that there has been a breach of a specified condition of the policy, being one of the following conditions, namely:- (i) a condition excluding the use of the vehicle- (a) for hire or reward, where the vehicle is on the date of the contract of insurance a vehicle not covered by a permit to ply for hire or reward, or (ii) a condition excluding driving by a named person or persons or by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e old Act and goods carriage in the Act is of significance. A bare reading of the provisions makes it clear that the legislative intent was to prohibit goods vehicle from carrying any passenger. This is clear from the expression in addition to passengers as contained in definition of good vehicle in the old Act. The position becomes further clear because the expression used is good carriage is solely for the carriage of goods. Carrying of passengers in a goods carriage is not contemplated in the Act. There is no provision similar to Clause (ii) of the proviso appended to Section 95 of the old Act prescribing requirement of insurance policy. Even Section 147 of the Act mandates compulsory coverage against death of or bodily injury to any passenger of public service vehicle . The proviso makes it further clear that compulsory coverage in respect of drivers and conductors of public service vehicle and employees carried in goods vehicle would be limited to liability under the Workmen s Compensation Act, 1923 (in short WC Act ). There is no reference to any passenger in goods carriage . 11. The inevitable conclusion, therefore, is that provisions of the Act do not enjoi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the policy. As we understand Section 147(1) of the Act, an insurance policy thereunder need not cover the liability in respect of death or injury arising out of and in the course of the employment of an employee of the person insured by the policy, unless it be a liability arising under the Workmen s Compensation Act, 1923 in respect of a driver, also the conductor, in the case of a public service vehicle, and the one carried in the vehicle as owner of the goods or his representative, if it is a goods vehicle. It is provided that the policy also shall not be required to cover any contractual liability. Swaran Singh (supra) was also distinguished stating that therein the vehicle involved having a third party risk stating : 17. It is difficult to apply the ratio of this decision to a case not involving a third party. The whole protection provided by Chapter XI of the Act is against third party risk. Therefore, in a case where a person is not a third party within the meaning of the Act, the insurance company cannot be made automatically liable merely by resorting to the Swaran Singh (supra) ratio. This appears to be the position. This position was expounded recently by this C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... provisions of the 1988 Act, we are of the opinion that as the provisions thereof do not enjoin any statutory liability on the owner of a vehicle to get his vehicle insured for any passenger travelling in a goods vehicle, the insurers would not be liable therefor. 27. Furthermore, Sub-clause (i) of Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 147 speaks of liability which may be incurred by the owner of a vehicle in respect of 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, whereas Sub-clause (ii) thereof deals with liability which may be incurred by the owner of a vehicle 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. [See also National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Bommithi Subbhayamma and Ors. [(2005) 12 SCC 243]; United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Shimla v. Tilak Singh and Ors. [(2006) 4 SCC 404]; Prem Kumar Ors. v. Prahlad Dev Ors. [2008 (1) SCALE 531] and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Prithvi Raj [2008 (1) SCALE 727] Having said so, we must take notice of the fact tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
