[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Narendra Singh Tomar vs Suman on 10 December, 2025
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:32254
1 CR-91-2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 10th OF DECEMBER, 2025
CIVIL REVISION No. 91 of 2010
NARENDRA SINGH TOMAR
Versus
SUMAN AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri R.P.Gupta - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Anand Vinod Bhardwaj- Advocate for the respondent No.3.
ORDER
This civil revision under Section 115 of C.P.C. has been filed against
award dated 18/05/2010 passed by Ist Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Bhind in Claim Case No.14/2009 by which insurance company has been
exonerated, but has been saddled with the principle of pay and recover.
2. The insurance company was exonerated on the ground that vehicle
in question had a permit for carrying 19 passengers and the insurance policy
was also for a vehicle having sitting capacity of 19 persons, but at the time of
accident, 40 passengers were sitting and, since the bus was carrying
excessive passengers, therefore, there was a violation of insurance policy.
3. Challenging the aforesaid findings recorded by Claims Tribunal, it
is submitted by counsel for applicant that in case of excessive passengers,
insurance company can be held liable to the extent of sitting capacity of
vehicle and liability to pay compensation to exceeding passengers, can be
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:32254
2 CR-91-2010
fastened on the owner. In the present case, only one person has suffered
injury, therefore, the entire liability is of insurance company.
4. To buttress his contentions, counsel for applicant has relied upon the
judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co.
LTD. Vs. Anjana Shyam and Others, (2007) 7 SCC 445.
5. Per contra, counsel for respondent No.3 has vehemently opposed the
submissions made by counsel for applicant and has supported the findings
recorded by Claims Tribunal.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
7. The Supreme Court in the case of Anjana Shyam (supra) has held as
under:-
"18. In this situation, the insurance taken out for the number of
permitted passengers can alone determine the liability of the
Insurance Company in respect of those passengers. In terms of
Section 149 of the Act, the duty of the insurer is only to satisfy
judgments and awards against persons insured in respect of the
third-party risk. Obviously, this is to the extent the third-party risk
is coverable and is covered. Section 149 of the Act speaks of
judgment or award being obtained against any person insured by
the policy and the liability of the insurer to pay to the person
entitled to the benefit of the decree any sum not exceeding the sum
assured payable thereunder subject to any claim the insurer may
have against the owner of the vehicle. Section 149 could not be
understood as compelling an Insurance Company to make
payment of amounts covered by decrees not only in respect of the
number of persons covered by the policy itself but even in respect
of those who are not covered by the policy and who have been
loaded into the vehicle against the terms of the permit and against
the terms of the condition of registration of the vehicle and in
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:32254
3 CR-91-2010
terms of violation of a statute.
19. It is true that the provisions in Chapter XI of the Act are
intended for the benefit of third parties with a view to ensure that
they receive the fruits of the awards obtained by them
straightaway with an element of certainty and not to make them
wait for a prolonged recovery proceeding as against the owner of
the vehicle. But from that, it would not be possible to take the next
step and find that the Insurance Company is bound to cover
liabilities not covered by the contract of insurance itself. The Act
only imposes an obligation to take out insurance to cover third-
party risks and in the case of stage carriages, the passengers to be
carried in the vehicle and the passengers to be carried in the
vehicle can be understood only as passengers authorised or
permitted to be carried in the vehicle.
20. In spite of the relevant provisions of the statute, insurance still
remains a contract between the owner and the insurer and the
parties are governed by the terms of their contract. The statute has
made insurance obligatory in public interest and by way of social
security and it has also provided that the insurer would be obliged
to fulfil his obligations as imposed by the contract and as overseen
by the statute notwithstanding any claim he may have against the
other contracting party, the owner, and meet the claims of third
parties subject to the exceptions provided in Section 149(2) of the
Act. But that does not mean that an insurer is bound to pay
amounts outside the contract of insurance itself or in respect of
persons not covered by the contract at all. In other words, the
insured is covered only to the extent of the passengers permitted to
be insured or directed to be insured by the statute and actually
covered by the contract.
21. The High Court has considered only the aspect whether by
overloading the vehicle, the owner had put the vehicle to a use not
allowed by the permit under which the vehicle is used. This aspect
is different from the aspect of determining the extent of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:32254
4 CR-91-2010
liability of the Insurance Company in respect of the passengers of
a stage carriage insured in terms of Section 147(1)(b )(ii) of the
Act. We are of the view that the Insurance Company can be made
liable only in respect of the number of passengers for whom
insurance can be taken under the Act and for whom insurance has
been taken as a fact and not in respect of the other passengers
involved in the accident in a case of overloading."
8. Thus, in the case of overloading, insurance company can be made
liable to the extent of insurance policy. In the present case, since, the sitting
capacity of vehicle was 19 and only one person had suffered injury,
therefore, the entire liability should have been fastened on the insurance
company.
9. Under these circumstances, the exoneration of insurance company
on the ground that bus in question was overloaded is hereby set aside. It is
made clear that since only one passenger had suffered injury in the accident,
therefore, the insurance company is jointly and severally responsible to pay
the compensation amount.
10. With aforesaid modification, award dated 18/05/2010 passed by I st
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhind in Claim Case No.14/2009 is hereby
affirmed.
11. This civil revision is finally disposed of.
(G. S. AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
PjS/-
