Supreme Court of India
SMT. THOKCHOM ONGBI SANGEETA@ SANGI DEVI AND ANR.versusORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ORS.
- Citation
- 2007 INSC 1096
- Decided
- 23 October 2007
- Disposal
- Disposed off
- Bench
- ARIJIT PASAYAT
Holding
The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 does not impose a statutory duty on the owner of a goods carriage to insure for passenger liability, and consequently the insurer has no liability for compensation to passengers in a goods vehicle.
Summary
A Tata truck, classified as a goods vehicle, met with an accident near Lungthulien village, leading to two claims before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Tribunal awarded compensation to the claimants, which the insurer, Oriental Insurance Co., contested on the ground that the Act does not require insurance for passengers in a goods carriage. The Guwahati High Court upheld the insurer's contention, holding that no statutory duty exists to insure such passengers. The Supreme Court affirmed this view, interpreting Section 147 of the 1988 Act and its proviso, and the corresponding provisions of the 1939 Act, to conclude that goods vehicles are prohibited from carrying passengers and thus no passenger‑insurance liability arises for the insurer. However, the Court noted that the High Court had not identified who must satisfy the award and remitted the matter for that limited purpose.
Issues considered
- Whether Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 imposes compulsory insurance for passengers in a goods carriage.
- Whether the insurer is liable to pay compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for passengers in a goods vehicle.
- Who is responsible for satisfying the award if the insurer is held not liable.
Legislation cited
Subjects
Motor Vehicles Actpassenger insurancegoods vehicleinsurer liabilitythird party riskMotor Accident Claims Tribunalcompensation
Judgment
SMT. THOKCHOM ONGBI SANGEETA@ SANGI DEVI AND A
ANR.
v.
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ORS.
OCTOBER 23, 2007 B
·1
{DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM,~J.]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; Proviso to Section 147/Moto(Vehicles
Act, 1939; Section 95: c
')
·Third Party riskS~Goods ·vehide-Liability 'of Insur~r.nffel(;f:
' Though Section -1'4 7 'of 1988 "Act makes conipulsory inilirant:e
dover age against death/bodily injury to' any passenger ofpub'lic
_carriage but thereri~ fzo reference ofsuch coverage to any passenger D
in goods carriage-Provisions under both the Acts makes it clear that (
y legislative. intent' was to prohibit goods
' ~ .
vehicles from carrying any .
'passengers__;Provisions under the 1988 Act do' not enjoin any statiito'ry
llability on ~he owner of a goods carriage to get his vehicle iiisured
for any passenger traveling in agoods carriage and the' insurer would
·incur no liability therefor-Hdwever, the matter remitted tdHigh;Court E
'-for the limitedpurpose offixing the·responsibility ofthepersori'who
is to-SatisfY the 'award made by the Tribunal. i ,, ~ :-
1:.,..
· A Tata ,Truck whi.Je procee4ing towards Mizoram met wit~ an
accident. Two claim
•'
cases were .. '
filed before the Motor
~ '*
Accident
' ...
F
.Claims Tribunal, Manipur under Motor Vehicles Ac~, 1988. 1 r.~e
. tribunal vide its common judgment and award _awarded cery;ain
amount of compensation in both the case.s. Insurer filed app~_~ls
thereagainst, w~ich were allo~ed. by the High Court. Hen.~~J~e
'present appeals.. . ..- , . ··Ji , • , , ;~1r~ ·n;;1 ···m 1) G
Appellant contended that the High CoGif<Jii.gift t~:ha~e d.ireeted ' ·
the insurer to pay and 1recover·the'a1m'bu:nt:(rom the insured.
·· Disposing·ofthe 1ap1peal§~'the-Court .. 'L"" ,:· 1 \1\ 1i•i>\ .. ·1\ \
• ·, ., ' U'!Of "")')
_r,\Jf'5\\\l_}··-~.'t•l;\\~i.\" \ \·\~~'.16Q9f1iG\:!•1 d,; ....-,tJ'·~-J-~lf.
;•' ll"
,\, H
.r11, !.i·J:_i.,, ,t\:'U[ )I. 1.0::1}1}S, Id?.. ; • ' i· -1 ·;w•',, 1 .i >l
610 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 11 S.C.R.
A HELD: 1.1. Third party risks in the background of vehicles
which are subject-matter ofinsurance are dealt with in Chapter VIII
of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and Chapter XI of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988. Proviso to Section 147 of the 1988 Act needs to
be juxtaposed with Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.
B [Para 8) [612-E]
1.2. It is of significance that proviso appended to Section 95 of
the 1939 Act contained in clause (ii) does not find place in the 1988
Act. [Para 8) (613-B]
C 1.3. The difference in the language of "goods vehicle" as
· appearing in the Old Act and "goods carriage" in the new 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
D passengers" as contained in definition of"goods vehicle" in the Old
act. The position becomes further clear because the expression used
Y,
is "goods 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
E 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 I==
I
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
F liability under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. There is no
reference to any passenger in "goods carriage". 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 ins· ...erwould
G have no liability therefor.
[Paras 9, 10 and 12) (613-D, E, r
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd v. Deviredd•
Ors., AIR (2003) SC 1009 and National lnsura1
H Ajit Kumar & Ors., AIR (2003) SC 3093, relir
f
.,,
THOKCHOM ON GB I SANGEET A@SANGI DEVI v. 611
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. [PASAYAT,J.]
r
2. The question that ought to have been dealt with by the High A
Court was the person who had the liability to pay the amount as
compensation as awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal:
Such a finding has not been recorded by the High Court. While
issuing notice, this Court has instructed that the matter requires to
be remitted to the High Court to fix the responsibility of the person B
who has to satisfy the Award made by the Tribunal eventhough, in
;.... law, the High Court was justified in holding that the Insurance'
... Company had no liability. Accordingly, the matter is remitted to the
High Court for the limited purpose of fixing the responsibility of the'
person who is to satisfy the Award made by the Tribunal. c
[Para 13] [614-B, C, DI,
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 4946-
4947of2007.
From the Judgment and final Order dated 4.11.2004 of the High D
Court of Guahati at Imphal in FAO Nos. 3/2003 & 4/2003.
Aribam Guneshwar Shanna for the Appellants.
M.K. Dua and Kishor Rawat for the Respondents.
"
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by E
DR. ARI.TIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. Challenge in these appeals is to the order passed by a Division
Bench of the Guwahati High Court, Imphal Bench, allowing the appeal
filed by respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred to as 'the insurer'). 'F
r
3. Briefly stated, the facts are that on 19.12.1994 at about 7.30 a.m.,
near Lungthulien village about 7 km. southwest from Parbung Police
Station on Tipaimukh Road, a Tata Truck bearing registration No.MN-
01/3578 while proceeding towards Mizorm met with an accident. Two G
claim cases were filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
~\. Manipur (in short 'Tribunal'), under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short
the 'Act'). The Tribunal by common judgment and award dated
31.12.2002, awarded compensation of Rs.2,99,464/- in MAC Case
No.61/95 and also an award of Rs.1,62,000/- in MAC Case H
612 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 11 S.C.R.
A No.27/95.
4. Tue Insurance Company assailed the said common judgment and
award only on the ground that the vehicle involved in the accident is a
Tata Truck which is a goods vehicle and, therefore, the Insurance
B Company is not liable to pay compensation.
5. Tue question of liability of the insurer with regard to the goods
carrier has been dealt with by this Court in Oriental Insurance Company ~
Ltd. v. Devireddy Konda Reddy and Ors., AIR (2003) SC 1009. In ~
the said case the provisions of Section 95(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939
C (hereinafter referred to as the 'Old Act') as well as Section 147 ( 1) of
the Act were dealt with.
6. The High Court by the impugned judgment, accepted the plea
and held that the insurer was not liable to pay the compensation.
D 7. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellants
submitted that the High Court ought to have directed the insurer to pay
and recover the amount from the insured. Learned counsel for the insurer ' <·
submitted that no such direction could have been given on the basis of
the position in law stated by this Court.
E 8. Third party risks in the background of vehicles which are subject-
matter of insurance are dealt with in Chapter VIII of the Old Act and
Chapter XI of the Act. Proviso to Section 147 needs to be juxtaposed
with Section 95 of the Old Act. Proviso to Section 147 of the Act reads
as follows:
F
"Provided that a policy shall not be required - --"'( ~-
(i) To cover liability in respect of the death 'arisin~- ouliof and in .
., ~~ .9?tt~f ~~f~i1s 19:~J.'~?ru~rt~,. o.f ~~ ~~P,lo~e~.~~ ~.~er$~~ i~~
i) owT .w~~~.t~fiP.?R~~;-~rm r~~pect ~~~~~~~r ~nJury s~~~mn.ed,b~ such ~n
. G JBmJdi·r'F111RlSX:~ ~s1~9 .~~t o.f ar9 I~~~ ~~ebf~s 'emplo~~nt ?~er
1~!~a1~~fj.~~1~~5{~~~~~~di W;t:~~~~~; ~?~~r;~~~ :rif~:
0
110 12
: b·mb·)
b:JJ.6 . 1£V/£ Dqs 1rt~:Jn~'L111 nor1u..
, r an.,v SUCllel1). oyee ;_. . . ' ·..
' ·."' : . . / . "·'
1~
~2EJ .Jft.tvr m -\M+\ ('.:O..DI lo flU!JLCrt'.::iqL.
0
.. .'. . i
r-rHnB) '.)(ajv1engag€l:l)i:J\lliiying;thezveb~Q.1¥;Qr f!H o~... .' ' I j
THOKCHOMONGBISANGEETA@SANGIDEVI v. 613
ORIENTALINSURANCECO.LTD. [PASAYAT,J.]
(b) if it is a public service vehicle engaged as conductor of the A
vehicle or in examining tickets on the vehicles, or
(c) if it is a goods carriage, being carried in the-vehicle, or
(ii) to cover any contractual liability.
B
"It is of significance that proviso appended to Section 95 of the
f
Old Act contained in clause (ii) does not find place in the new
Act. The same reads as follow:
"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 C
contract of employment, to cover liability in respect of the de~th
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."
9. The difference in the language of"goods vehicle" as appearing in D
the Old Act and "goods carriage" in the Act is of significance. A baie
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 "goods
vehicle" in the Old Act. The position becomes further clear because the E
expression used is "goods 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 F
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. There is no reference to any passenger in G
"goods carriage".
I0. 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 H
614 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 11 S.C.R.
A insurer would have no liability therefor.
11. The above position was highlighted in Devireddy Konda Reddy
and Ors. 's case (supra) and National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Ajit
Kumar and Ors., AIR (2003) SC 3093.
B 12. The High Court was, therefore, justified in holding that the insurer
was not liable. A
13. But the further question that ought to have been dealt with by
the High Court was the person who had the liability to pay the amount
awarded as compensation. Such a finding has not been recorded by the
C High Court. While issuing notice on 4.3.2005, it was indicated thilt the
matter requires to be remitted to the High Court to fix the responsibility
of the person who is to satisfy the Award made by the Tribunal even
though, in law, the High Court was justified in holding that the Insurance
Company had no liability. Accordingly, we remit the matter to the High
D Court for the limited purpose of fixing the responsibility of the person who
is to satisfy the Award made by the Tribunal.
14. The appeals are disposed of accordingly.
S.K.S. Appeals disposed of.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Motor Vehicles Act"Sign in to search