Delhi High Court
United India Insurance Company ... vs Nirmala Devi & Ors. on 5 October, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 5th October, 2012
+ MAC.APP. 152/2005
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. ....... Appellant
Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth, Adv.
versus
NIRMALA DEVI & ORS. ..... Respondent
Through: Nemo.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The Appellant United India Insurance Company Limited takes exception
to the judgment dated 20.12.2004 passed by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) on the ground that the deceased was
travelling in a goods vehicle and thus, the Appellant Insurance Company
had no liability to pay the compensation at all. The Claims Tribunal erred
in making the Appellant liable to pay the compensation.
2. The learned counsel for the Appellant places reliance on New India
Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani, (2003) 2 SCC 223 wherein the previous
decision in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Satpal Singh, (2000) 1 SCC
237 was overruled and it was held that Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 (the Act) did not impose any statutory liability on the owner of
the vehicle to get his vehicle insured for any passenger travelling in a
goods vehicle and therefore, the insurer would not be liable for the claim
of such person travelling in a goods vehicle.
3. As per Section 147 of the Act, the owner of a goods vehicle is under
obligation to insure his vehicle in respect of the death or bodily injury to
any person including owner of the goods or his authorized representative
carried in the vehicle. Thus, the owner of a goods vehicle is also under
statutory obligation and the insurer is bound to provide coverage for the
owner or the goods or his authorized representative travelling in a goods
vehicle.
4. As per the averments made in the Claim Petition, the deceased was
working with Blue Bell, Dairy at G.P.F. & V. Mandi, Delhi and was
drawing a salary of `5,000/- per month. Although, in the written
statement filed by the Appellant Insurance Company a plea was taken
that the deceased was travelling in a goods vehicle in contravention of the
terms of policy of the insurance. However, during inquiry before the
Claims Tribunal the policy of insurance was neither produced nor proved
nor even a suggestion was given to the Claimant PW-1 Smt. Nirmala
Devi that the deceased was not travelling in the capacity of representative
of the owner of the goods but only as a gratuitous passenger.
5. It seems that the plea of the deceased being carried as a gratuitous
passenger was abandoned by the Appellant Insurance Company and that
is why neither the Insurance policy was proved nor even a iota of
evidence was produced to prove that the deceased was a gratuitous
passenger.
6. In the circumstances, no fault can be found with the impugned judgment
holding the Appellant Insurance Company liable to indemnify the insured
as the vehicle was duly insured.
7. The Appeal, therefore, has to fail; the same is accordingly dismissed.
8. The statutory deposit of `25,000/- shall be refunded to the Appellant
Insurance Company.
9. Pending Applications also stand disposed of.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
OCTOBER 05, 2012
vk
