In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Baljit Kaur & Ors. reported in MANU/SC/0009/2004MANU/SC/0009/2004 : (2004) 1 WBLR (SC) 490 the Supreme Court held:
"17. By reason of the 1994 Amendment what was added is "including the owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle". The liability of the owner of the vehicle to insure it compulsorily, thus, by reason of the aforementioned amendment included only the owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle besides the third parties. The intention of the Parliament, therefore, could not have been that the words 'any person' occurring in Section 147 would cover all persons who were travelling in a goods carriage in any capacity whatsoever. If such was the intention there was no necessity of the Parliament to carry out an amendment inasmuch as expression 'any person' contained in sub-clause (i) of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 147 would have included the owner of the goods or his authorised representative besides the passengers who are gratuitous or otherwise.
The observations made in this connection by the Court in Asha Rani case to which one of us, Sinha, J., was a party, however, bear repletion:
"26. In view of the changes in the relevant provisions in the 1988 Act vis-à-vis the 1939 Act, we are of the opinion that the meaning of the words "any person" must also be attributed having regard to the context in which they have been used i.e. 'a third party'. Keeping in view the 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."
In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Challa Bharathamma & Ors. reported in MANU/SC/0779/2004MANU/SC/0779/2004 : (2004) 8 SCC 517 the Supreme Court held that the insurer was not liable since the vehicle was being operated without a permit. The defence of Section 149(2) would be available to the insurer. The Supreme Court held that considering the beneficial object of the Act, it would be proper for the insurer to satisfy the award, though in law it has no liability. In some cases the insurer has been given the option and liberty to recover the amount from the insured. For the purpose of recovering the amount paid from the owner, the insurer shall not be required to file a suit. It may initiate a proceeding before the executing Court concerned as if the dispute between the insurer and the owner was the subject-matter of determination before the Tribunal. The offending vehicle might be attached as part of security.
In Manager, National Insurance Company Limited v. Saju P. Paul & Anr. reported in MANU/SC/0006/2013MANU/SC/0006/2013 : (2013) 2 SCC 41 the Supreme Court held that the insurer is liable to pay compensation only in respect of those employees for whom insurance premium is paid and not for each and every employee who might be travelling as a gratuitous passenger in the vehicle concerned. However, considering that the claim had been pending for two decades and the insurer had deposited the entire awarded amount the Supreme Court permitted the respondent/claimant to withdraw the said amount along with accrued interest with liberty to the insurer to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle.
"17. By reason of the 1994 Amendment what was added is "including the owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle". The liability of the owner of the vehicle to insure it compulsorily, thus, by reason of the aforementioned amendment included only the owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle besides the third parties. The intention of the Parliament, therefore, could not have been that the words 'any person' occurring in Section 147 would cover all persons who were travelling in a goods carriage in any capacity whatsoever. If such was the intention there was no necessity of the Parliament to carry out an amendment inasmuch as expression 'any person' contained in sub-clause (i) of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 147 would have included the owner of the goods or his authorised representative besides the passengers who are gratuitous or otherwise.
The observations made in this connection by the Court in Asha Rani case to which one of us, Sinha, J., was a party, however, bear repletion:
"26. In view of the changes in the relevant provisions in the 1988 Act vis-à-vis the 1939 Act, we are of the opinion that the meaning of the words "any person" must also be attributed having regard to the context in which they have been used i.e. 'a third party'. Keeping in view the 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."
In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Challa Bharathamma & Ors. reported in MANU/SC/0779/2004MANU/SC/0779/2004 : (2004) 8 SCC 517 the Supreme Court held that the insurer was not liable since the vehicle was being operated without a permit. The defence of Section 149(2) would be available to the insurer. The Supreme Court held that considering the beneficial object of the Act, it would be proper for the insurer to satisfy the award, though in law it has no liability. In some cases the insurer has been given the option and liberty to recover the amount from the insured. For the purpose of recovering the amount paid from the owner, the insurer shall not be required to file a suit. It may initiate a proceeding before the executing Court concerned as if the dispute between the insurer and the owner was the subject-matter of determination before the Tribunal. The offending vehicle might be attached as part of security.
In Manager, National Insurance Company Limited v. Saju P. Paul & Anr. reported in MANU/SC/0006/2013MANU/SC/0006/2013 : (2013) 2 SCC 41 the Supreme Court held that the insurer is liable to pay compensation only in respect of those employees for whom insurance premium is paid and not for each and every employee who might be travelling as a gratuitous passenger in the vehicle concerned. However, considering that the claim had been pending for two decades and the insurer had deposited the entire awarded amount the Supreme Court permitted the respondent/claimant to withdraw the said amount along with accrued interest with liberty to the insurer to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle.
Comments
Post a Comment