NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.versusAJIT KUMAR AND ORS.

                  NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.                                 A
                               v.
                      AJIT KUMAR AND ORS.

                          SEPTEMBER 2, 2003

        [DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.]                             B
     Motor Vehicles Act, 1988-Sections 2(14), 2(35), 2(40), 2(47),
145(c), 147- 'Goods Carriage '-Person traveling in goods carriage as
passenger-Death or bodily injury-Liability of insurer-Held, insurer not
liable-Motor Vehicles Act, 1939-Sections 2(8), 2(25), 2(29), 2(33).           C
      The only question involved in the appeals in whether insurer is
liable to pay compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for
death of or bodily injury to the person traveling in a goods vehicle as
passenger. The Tribunal and the High Court relying on the case of New
India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Satpal Singh, fixed liability on the insurer.     D
Hence, these appeals by the insurer.

     Allowing the appeals, the Court

     HELD : 1.1. Provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 do not            E
enjoin any statutory liability on the owner of a vehicle to get his vehicle
insured for any passenger traveling in a goods carriage and the insurer
would have no liability therefor. [326-D)

     New India Assurance Co. Ltd v. Asha Rani and Ors., [2003) 2 SCC
223, followed.                                                                F
     Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd v. Devireddy Konda Reddy and Ors.,
[2003) 2 sec 339, relied on.

      1.2. In Satpal Singh 's case this Court proceeded on the footing that
provision of Section 95(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 are in pari        G
materia with Section 147(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as it stood
prior to the amendment in 1994. There are conceptual differences in
the expressions "goods vehicle", "public service vehicle", "stage carrier",
"transport vehicle" occurring in Sections 2(8), 2(25), 2(29),_2(33) of the
1939 Act with the corresponding provisions i.e. Sections 2(14), 2(35),        H
                                   321
    322                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A 2(40) and 2(47) of the 1988 Act The difference in the language of
  "goods vehicle" as appearing in the 1939 Act and "goods carriage" in
  the 1988 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
B to passengers" as contained in definition of"goods vehicle" in the 1939
  Act. The position becomes further clear because the expression used
  in "goods carriage" is "solely for the carriage of goods" Carrying of
  passengers in a goods carriage is not contemplated in the 1988 Act.
                                              [323-E-G, 325-H, 326-A, BJ

C        New India Assurance Co. ltd v. Satpal Singh, (2000) 1 SCC 237,
    explained and distinguished.

         1.3. There is no provision similar to clause (ii) of the proviso
    appended to Section 95 of the 1939 Act prescribing requirement of
D   insurance policy. Even Section 147 of the 1988 Act mandates compulsory
    coverage against death of or bodily injury to any person 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. There is no reference
E   to any passenger in "goods carriage". (326-B, C[

        CIVIL APPELLATE WRISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 6915-
    6916 of 2003.

          From the Judgment and Order dated 22.3.2002 of the Madhya
F Pradesh High Court in F.A. No. 421 and 422 of 2001.
          Kishore Rawat and M.K. Dua for the Appellant.

          Dr. Kailash Chand and Durgesh Shrimali for the Respondents.

G         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

          ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. : Leave granted.

          The only question raised in these appeals is whether the insurer is
    liable to pay the compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in
H   short the 'Act') for the death or bodily injury to a person traveling in goods
    NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. AJITKUMAR [PASAYAT, J) 323

vehicle as passenger. Liability of the insurer was fixed by relying on this      A
Court's decision in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Satpa/ Singh, [2000)
1 sec 237.

     Factual aspects need not be gone into in detail, as there is practically
no dispute on the factual aspects.
                                                                                 B
      Learned counsel for the insurer-appellant submitted that Section 149
(2) of the Act is etymologically different from proviso (ii) to Section 96
(2)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the 'old
Act') and, therefore, the ratio in Satpal Singh 's case (supra) has no
application. In response, learned counsel appearing for the claimants            C
submitted that in the said case such a stand has been negatived and it has
been held that insurer is liable to pay compensation to gratuitous passengers.

     This Court had occasion to deal with cases of passengers traveling
in goods vehicles which met with accident resulting in death of such person
or bodily injury. Such cases belong to three categories i.e. (I) those           D
covered by the old Act; (2) those covered by the Act; and (3) those covered
by amendment of the Act in 1994 by the Motor Vehicles (Amendment)
Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Amendment Act').

     The present appeals belong to the second category.                          E
      In Satpal Singh 's case (supra) this Court proceeded on the footing
that provision of Section 95(1) of the old Act is in pari materia with Section
147(1) of the Act, as it stood prior to the amendment in 1994.

      On a closer reading of the expressions "goods vehicle", "public            F
service vehicle", "stage carrier" and "transport vehicle" occurring in
Sections 2(8), 2(25), 2(29) and 2(33) of the old Act with the corresponding
provisions i.e. Section 2(14), 2(35), 2(40) and 2(47) of the Act, it is clear
that there are conceptual differences. The provisions read as follows:

         Old Act:                                                                G

         "2(8) "goods vehicle" means any motor vehicle constructed or
         adapted for use for the carriage of goods, or any motor vehicle
         not so constructed or adapted when used for the carriage of goods
         solely or in addition to passengers;"                                   H
    324                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A            "2(25) "public service vehicle" means any motor vehicle used or
             adapted to be used for the carriage of passengers for hire or
             reward, and includes a motorcab, contract carriage, and stage
             carriage;"

             "2(29) "stage carriage" means a motor vehicle carrying or adapted
B            to carry more than six persons excluding the driver which carries
             passengers for hire or reward at separate fares paid by or for
             individual passengers, either for the whole journey or for stages
             of the journey;"

c            "2(33) "transport vehicle" means a public service vehicle or a
             goods vehicle;"

             New Act:

             "2(14) "goods carriage" any motor vehicle constructed or adapted
D            for use solely for the carriage ofgoods, or any motor vehicle not
             so constructed or adapted when used for the carriage of goods;"

             "2(35) "public service vehicle" means any motor vehicle used or
             adapted to be used for the carriage of passengers for hire or
E            reward, and includes a maxicab, a motorcab, contract, and stage
             carriage;"

             "2(40) "stage carriage" means a motor vehicle constructed or
             adapted to carry more than six passengers excluding the driver for
             hire or reward at separate fares paid by or for individual passengers,
F            either for the whole journey or for stages of the journey;"

             "2(47) "transport vehicle" means a public service vehicle, a goods
             carriage, an educational institution bus or a private service
             vehicle;"
G                                                    (Italicised for emphasis)

          "Liability" as defined in Section 145(c) of the Act reads as follows:

             '"Liability' wherever used in relation to the death of or bodily
             injury to any person, includes liability in respect thereof under
H            Section 140;"
    NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. AJIT KUMAR [PASAYAT, J] 325

      Third party risks in the background of vehicles which are subject-        A
matter of insurance are dealt with in Chapter VIII of the old Act and
Chapter XI of the Act. Proviso to Se~tion 147 needs to be juxtaposed with
Section 95 of the old Act. Proviso to Section 147 of the Act reads as
follows:

             "Provided that a policy shall not be required-
                                                                                B

        (i) to cover liability in respect of the death, arising out of and in
        the course of his employment, of the employee ofa 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       C
        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
                                                                                D
              (b)   if it is a public service vehicle engaged as conductor
                    of the vehicle or in examining tickets on the vehicles,
                    or

              (c)   if it is a goods carriage, being carried in the vehicle,    E
                    or

        (ii) to cover any contractual liability."

It is of significance that proviso appended to Section 95 of the old Act
contained clause (ii) which does not find place in the new Act. The same        F
reads as follows:-

        "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      G
        of or bodily injury to persons being carried in or upon or entering
        or mounting or alighting from the vehicle at the time of the
        occurrence of the event out of which a claim arises."

The difference in the language of "goods vehicle" as appearing in the old
Act and "goods carriage" in the Act is of significance. A bare reading of       H
    326                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A 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"goods vehicle" in the
    old Act. The position becomes further clear because the expression used
    is "goods carriage" is solely for the carriage of goods". Carrying of
B   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
C   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'.

D        The inevitable conclusion, therefore, is that provisions of the Act do
    not enjoin any statutory liability on the owner of a vehicle to get his vehicle
    insured for any passenger traveling in a goods carriage and the insurer
    would have no liability therefor.

E        Our view gets support from a decision of a three-Judge Bench in New
    India Assurance Co. Ltd v. Asha Rani and Ors., (2003] 2 SCC 223 and
    Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd v. Devireddy Kanda Reddy and Ors., (2003]
    2 sec 339.

        Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that respondent No. I
F should be permitted to avail such remedies as are available in law for
  recovering any amount to be paid as compensation from a person liable
  to pay compensation at the first instance. No permission is necessary for
  such purpose. If respondent No. I has any remedy in law it is open to pursue
  it in accordance with law. The appeals are allowed by setting aside the
G judgment of the Tribunal and the High Court. There shall be no order as
  to costs.

    A.K.T.                                                      Appeals allowed.