TMI Blog2004 (1) TMI 676X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... und 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. 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 concerned vehicle 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 ₹ 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. It may be noticed at the outset that the Judgment rendered in Satpal Singh case (supra) has been subseque ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or his authorized representative carried in the vehicle in Section 147 would result in the inference that gratuitous passengers would as well be covered by the scope of the provision. Any other construction, it was urged by the learned counsel for the second and third respondents, would render the effect of the words any person as completely redundant. The material portion of the provision contained in Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as amended by the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1994 reads as follows: 147. 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) (b) insures the person or classes of persons 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, including owner of the goods or his authorized representative carried in the vehicle 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) * * * (emphasis added) Admittedl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the goods carriage carrying any passenger is not contemplated under the 1988 Act as the same must be used solely for carrying the goods. In Halsbury's Laws of England, Volume 44(1), fourth reissue, para 1474, pp 906-07, it is stated : Parliament intends that an enactment shall remedy a particular mischief and it is therefore presumed that Parliament intends that the court, when considering, in relation to the facts of the instant case, which of the opposing constructions of the enactment corresponds to its legal meaning, should find a construction which applies the remedy provided by it in such a way as to suppress that mischief. The doctrine originates in Heydon's case where the Barons of the Exchequer resolved that for the sure and true interpretation of all statutes in general (be they penal or beneficial, restrictive or enlarging of the common law), four things are to be discerned and considered : (1) what was the common law before the making of the Act; (2) what was the mischief and defect for which the common law did not provide; (3) what remedy Parliament has resolved and appointed to cure the disease of the commonwealth; and (4) the true reason of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of a vehicle to get his vehicle insured for any passenger traveling in a goods vehicle, the insurers would not be liable therefor. In Asha Rani (supra), it has been noticed that sub-clause (i) of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 147 of the 1988 Act 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. Furthermore, an owner of a passenger-carrying vehicle must pay premium for covering the risks of the passengers travelling in the vehicle. The premium in view of the 1994 Amendment would only cover a third party as also the owner of the goods or his authorised representative and not any passenger carried in a goods vehicle whether for hire or reward or otherwise. It is therefore, manifest that in spite of the amendment of 1994, the effect of the provision contained in Section 147 with respect to persons other than the owner of the goods or his authorized representative remains the same. Although the owner of the goods or his authorized representative would now be covered by the policy of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
