RAMASHRAY SINGHversusNEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ORS.

A                              RAMASHRA Y SINGH
                                         v.
                 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD. AND ORS.

                                  JULY 22, 2003

B                    (RUMA PAL AND 8.N. SRIKRISHNA, JJ.J


          Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; Ss. 145, 146 and 147:

          Insurance policy in respect of a passenger carrier against third party
C   risk-Khalasi died when the vehicle met with an accident-legal heirs of the
    deceased filed a claim-labour Court held the insurance company liable to
    pay compensation under the insurance policy-Reversed by the High Court-
    Liability of the insurer lo persons in employment of the insured-Extent a/-
    Held: An insurance policy does not cover liability of insurer in respect of
D   death/injury to any employee of the insured arising out of and in the course
    of employment unless the liability of insured arises und"'° the Workmen's
    Compensation Act or the employee is a driver of the vehicle/conductor/ ticket
    examiner of public transport vehicle-Insured could cover other employees
    as well in the policy by entering into an agreement with the insurer and
    paying additional premium-Since deceased was a Kha/asi and not a
E   conductor/passenger nor Insured had paid any additional premium to cover
    risk of conductor/other employee, the claim is unsustainable-Workmen's
    Compensation Act-Motor Vehicles Act, 1935; Section 95.

          Words and Phrases:

F         'any person', 'any passenger' 'comprehensive policy'-Meaning of in
    the context of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

        Appellant, owner of a passenger carrier, insured the vehicle and was
  paying premium to the respondent-insurance company on the basis of "13
G passengers+ I". He had employed a Khalasi. The vehicle met with an accident
  and the Khalasi died. Legal heirs of the deceased employee filed a claim
  against the appellant and the insurance company. The Workmen's
  Compensation Court held the insurance company liable to pay compensation
  since accident occurred during the continuance of insurance policy. Insurance
  company challenged the order. High Court reversed the order. Hence the
H                                       666
             RAMASMRAY SINGM v. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD.                 667
present appeal filed by the aggrieved insured.                                      A
      It was contendCd for the appellant that the insurance policy expressly
covered the death/injury to the Khalasi; and that since premium was paid in
respect of Khalasi also, Insurer was liable to pay compensation.

       On behalf of the respondent, it was submitted that since additional          B
premium to cover risk to a Khalasi was not paid by the appellant, Insurer was
not liable to pay; and that no employee of the Insured except driver was covered
under the insurance policy.

      Dismissing the appeal, the Court
                                                                                    c
        HELD: 1.1. The phrases 'any person' and 'any passenger' in clauses (i)
and (ii) of sub section (b) to Section 147(1) of the Act are of wide amplitude.
However, the proviso to the sub-section carves out an exception in respect of
one class of persons and passengers, namely, employees of the insured. This
would still allow the insured to enter into an agreement to cover other             D
employees, but under the proviso to Section 147 (l)(b), it is clear that for the
purposes of Section 146(1 ), a policy shall not be required to cover liability in
respect of the death arising out of and in the course of any employment of the
person insured unless the liability of the insured arises under the Workmen's
Compensation Act, and if the employee is engaged in driving the vehicle and
if it is a public service vehicle, is engaged as conductor of the vehicle or in     E
examining tickets on the vehicle. If the concerned employee is neither a driver
nor conductor nor examiner of tickets, the insured cannot claim that the
employee would come under the description of "any person" or "passenger".
If this were permissible, then there would be no need to make special
provisions for employees of the insured.1671-D-G)
                                                                                    F
      New India Assurance Company v. Satpal Singh and Ors., 1200011 SCC
237, relied on.

      1.2. The mere mention of the word "cleaner" while describing the
seating capacity of the vehicle does not mean that the cleaner was a passenger.
Besides the claim of the deceased employee was adjudicated upon by the              G
Workmen's Compensation Court which could have assumed jurisdiction and
passed an order directing compensation only on the basis that the deceased
was an employee. This order cannot then be enforced on the basis that the
deceased was a passenger. 1671-H; 672-A)
                                                                                    H
    668                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003) SUPP. I S.C.R.

A         1.3. A person carried in pursuance of a contract of employment would
    be a passenger and would be covered as such under Section 95 of the Motor
    Vehicles Act, 1935. The exclusion of this clause in the proviso to Section
    147(1)(b) of the present Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 bolsters the reasoning that
    ~mployees other than the three mentioned are not covered by Section 147(1Xb).
                                                                          (668-EJ
B
          National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Philomena Mathew, (1993) ACJ 1116,
    distinguished.

          1.4. It is doubtful whether a 'khalasi' and a conductor are the same.
C But assuming these were so, there is nothing to show that the appellant had
    paid any additional premium to cover the risk of injury to a conductor. On the
    contrary, the policy shows that premium was paid for 13 passengers and I
    driver. There was no payment of premium for a conductor. (672-Fl

          1.5. An insurance policy only covers the person or classes of persons
D   specified in the policy. A comprehensive policy merely means that the loss
    sustained by such person/persons would be payable upto the insured amount
    irrespective of the actual loss suffered. [672-Hl

          New India Insurance Co. Ltd v. J.M Jaya, [2002[ 2 SCC 278 and T. V.
    Jose v. Chacko P.M@ Thankachan, [2001) 8 SCC 748, relied on.
E
          Law of Insurance (7th Edition) P.93-94 by Collnvaux, referred to.

          2. Although the appellant's claim under the insurance policy arose
    under the Workmen's Compensation Act, since the concerned employee was
    not engaged in the capacity of driver in respect of whom alone premium was
F   paid apart from the passengers, his claim is unsustainable. [673-A-B[

          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5147 of2003.

         From the Judgment and Order dated 24.7.2002 of the Patna High Court
    in M.A. No. 665of1999.
G         Arup Banerjee and Deba Prasad Mukherjee for the Appellant.

          Kishore Kumar Rawat and M.K. Dua for the Respondents.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

H         RUMA PAL,J. Leave granted.
      RAMASHRA Y SINGH v. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. [RUMA PAL, J.]       669

      The appellant is the owner of a vehicle, described as a "trekker", in         A
which passengers are carried for hire. He employed Shashi Bhushan Singh as
a "khalasi" of the vehicle. On 21. l 0.1998 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        B
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.                       C
      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.   D
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 (I) of section E
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+ I" has been inserted. A cleaner, as accepted by both F
parties before us, would include a khalasi. The appellant submitted that he
had paid premium on the basis of 13+ I to cover the liability in question.

      The respondent has refuted the claim that any additional 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 14 7 (I) (b ), no G
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( I) 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 H
    670                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A 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. - (I) In
B           order to comply with the requirements of this Chapter, a policy of
            insurance must be a policy which -

            (a) xxx xxx xxx xxx

            (b) insures the person or classes of persons specified in the policy
C           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;
D          (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 -

E          (0 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 ( 8of1923), in respect of the death of, or bodily injury
F                 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
G                 (b) If it is a goods carriage, being carried in the vehicle, or

           (ii) to cover any contractual liability".

        Over and above the risks which are covered by this statutory provision,
  parties may of course enter into a contract by which the insurer agrees to
H cover additional risks. It is not the appellant's case that apart from the policy
      RAMASHRAY SINGH ''-NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. [RUMA PAL J.]          67 J
of insurance there was any contract between the appellant and the insurance          A
company. The policy has a clause which defines the limits of liability in
respect of death or bodily injury to any person caused by or arising out of
the use of the motor vehicle under Section ll(i) of the terms and conditions
of the Policy. In proviso (b) to Section II (I), it has been expressly stated that
"Except so far as is necessary to meet the requirements of the Motor Vehicles        B
Act, the Company shall not be liable in respect of death of or bodily injury
to any person in the employment of the insured arising out of and in the
course of such employment".

      A copy of the original policy was produced by the respondents in the
course of arguments. The appellant has objected to the production of the C
policy at this stage. We would have understood and upheld the submission
had the appellant not based his claim on the policy. Indeed, in the absence
of the policy, we could not have entertained the appellant's claim at all. (See:
Dr. T. V. Jose v. Chacko P.M alias Thankachan, [2001] 8 SCC 748.

        The appellant's first submission was that Shashi Bhushan Singh was a D
passenger. The appellant's submission that the phrases 'any person' and
"any passenger" in clauses (i) and (ii) of sub section (b) to Section 147(1) are
of wide amplitude, is correct. [See: New India Assurance Company v. Satpal
Singh and Ors., (2000] I SCC 237. However, the proviso to the sub-section
carves out an exception in respect of one class of persons and passengers,
namely, employees of the insured. In other words, if the "person" or E
"passenger" is aq employee, then the insurer is required under the statute to
cover only certain employees. As stated earlier, this would still allow the
insured to enter into an agreement to cover other employees, but under the
proviso to Section 147 (I )(b ), it is clear that for the purposes of Section 146(1 ),
a policy shall not be required to cover liability in respect of the death arising p
out of and in the course of any employment of the person insured unless:
first : the liability of the insured arises under the Workmen's Compensation
Act, 1923 and second : if the employee is engaged in driving the vehicle and
if it is a public service vehicle, is engaged as conductor of the vehicle or in
examining tickets on the vehicle. If the concerned employee is neither a driver
nor conductor nor examiner of tickets, the insured cannot claim that the G
employee would come under the description of"any person" or "passenger".
If this were permissible, then there would be no need to make special provisions
for employees of the insured. The mere mention of the word "cleaner" while
describing the seating capacity of the vehicle does not mean that the cleaner
was therefore a passenger. Besides the claim of the deceased employee was H
    672                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS r2003] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A adjudicated upon by the Workmen's Compensation Court which could have
    assumed jurisdiction and passed an order directing compensation only on the
    basis that the deceased was an employee. This order cannot now be enforced
    on the basis that the deceased was a passenger.

          The decision of the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court relied on by
B the appellant National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Philomena Mathew: (1993) ACJ
    1116 was based on a construction of Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
    1939 the corresponding section to which under the present Act is section 14 7.
    The relevant provisions of the two sections which are otherwise in pari
    materia are materially different in one respect. Section 95 covered a fourth
C   category of employee after the three now mentioned in clauses (a)(b) and (c)
    to the proviso to Section 147 (l)(b) viz.,:

               "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
D          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". (emphasis supplied)

           So a person carried in pursuance of a contract of employment would
    be a passenger and would be covered as such. The exclusion of this clause
E   in the proviso to Section 147(1)(b) of the present Act bolsters our reasoning
    that employees other than the three mentioned are not covered by Section
    147 (l)(b).

          The appellant's next submission was that the concerned employee was
    a 'conductor'. It is doubtful whether a 'khalasi' and a conductor are the same.
F   But assuming this were so, there is nothing to show that the appellant had
    paid any additional premium to cover the risk of injury to a conductor. On the
    contrary, the policy shows that premium was paid for 13 passengers and 1
    driver. There is no payment of premium for a conductor.

          The appellant's final submission was that as the policy was a
G comprehensive one, it would cover all risks including the death of the khalasi.
    The submission is unacceptable. An insurance policy only covers the person
    or classes of persons specified in the policy. A comprehensive policy merely
    means that the loss sustained by such person/persons will be payable upto
    the insured amount irrespective of the actual loss suffered. [See: New India
H   Insurance Co. Ltd. v. J.M. Jaya [2002) 2 SCC 278 and Colinvaux's: Law of
              RAMASHRAYSINGH v. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. [RUMA PAL, J.]   673
     Insurance (7th Edition) p. 93-94.                                               A
           Consequently, although the appellant's claim under the insurance policy
     arose under the Workmen's Compensation Act, since the concerned employee
     was not engaged in the capacity of driver in respect of whom alone premium
     was paid apart from the passengers, his claim is unsustainable.
                                                                                     B
              The appeal is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs.

     S.K.S.                                                     Appeal dismissed.




-.