UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., SHIMLA v. TILAK SINGH AND ORS

Citation: [2006] 3 S.C.R. 758

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: B.N. SRIKRISHNA, LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA

Case summary

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., SHIMLA v. TILAK SINGH AND ORS.pdf

Judgment text

-- UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. , SHIMLA v. TILAK SINGH AND ORS. .. APRIL 4, 2006 [B. N. SRIKRISHNA AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ. ] Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: ss. 147--Statutory insurance polic;r--Gratuitous passenger-Liability of insurance company-Held, insurance company owed no liability towards injuries suffered by deceased, a pillion rider, as insurance policy was a statutory policy and it did not cover the risk of death or bodily injury to gratuitous passenger-Motor Vehicles Act, 1939-s. 95. s. 157-Failure oftransferor to notifY the insurer offacts oftransfer of ownership of insured vehicle-Reid, situation is nut different whether u/s 103-A of 1939 Act or uls 157 of 19fl8 Act, in so far as liability towards a third person is concerned-s. 157 provides that certificate of insurance and the policy "shall be deemed to have been transferred in favour ofthe persons to whom vehicle is transferred w. ej the date of its transfer- Motor Vehicles Act, 1939--ss. 94, 95 and 103-A.

Transfer of Vehicle-Motor accident· --Claim petition-Applicability of provisions ofrelevant Act--Held, it is not transfer ofvehicle but the accident which furnishes the cause of action-Since accident took place after 1988 Act came into force, the same would govern the situation. Respondent No. I purchased a scooter from respondent No. 5 on 23. 3. 1989. Though registration certificate was transferred in the name of respondent No. I, no notice to appellant-insurance _company was given for transfer of insurance policy and insurance certificate. On 31. 10. 1989 while respondent No. 1 was driving the scooter, it met with an accident and as a result the pillion rider died. Legal heirs filed claim petition arraying inter a/ia respondent No. 1, respondent No. 5 and the insurance company. The Tribunal held the claimants entitled to Rs. 3,89,000/- holding respondent No. 1 only liable for payment ofcompensation and absolved the insurance company 75& UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. , SHIMLA 1•.

TILAK SINGH 759 of the liability on the ground that no notice of the transfer of the vehicle had been given to the insurer as prescribed by the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. On appeal by respondent No. 1, the High Court held that the insurance company was severally and jointly liable along with respondent No. 1 for payment of the compensation awarded. Aggrieved, the insurance company filed the appeal. It was contended for the appellant that the law applicable in determining the liability of the insurance company would be 1939 Act and not the 1988 Act; that since the transferor of the vehicle did not apply to the insurance company for transfer of insurance policy and insurance certificate in terms obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under any enactment so repealed. The learned counsel relied on the judgment of this Court in Ramesh Singh and Anr. v. Cinta Devi and Ors. , [1996] 3 sec 142 in support of his contention.

Section 6(c) ofthe General Clauses Act would hardly have any application to a cause of action in favour of a person who was neither a transferor, nor the transferee of the insured vehicle. At the most, the failure to give an intimation under Section 103-A ofthe 1939 Act would create a liability on the part of the transferor vis-a-vis the insurance company, but would hardly affect a third party's claim for compensation. This position of law is well established by judgments of High Courts and this Court. Citing with approval the judgment of the Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in ,\Iadineni Konduiah and Ors. v. Yaseen Fatima and Ors.. AIR (1986) AP 62 and contrasting the provision of section 103-A of the 1939 Act with Section 157 of the 1988 Act, this Court said in Complete Insulations Ltd v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. , [1996] I SCC 221 (vide para 6).

·'Now, under the old Act although the insurer could refuse to transfer the certificate of insurance in certain circumstances and the transfer was not automatic as under the new Act, there was under the old law protection to third parties, that is victim of the accident. The protection was available by virtue of Sections 94 and 95 of the old Act. " The judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Kondaiah (supra) was specifically referred to and affirmed in the subsequent judgment of this Court in New India Assurance Cu. Ltd. v. Sheela Rani (Sm/. ) and Ors. , [1998] 6 SCC 599, where this Court observed after ref~rring to the judgment in Complete Insulations (supra) as follows (vide para IO)" ..

A careful reading of the judgment of this Court, extracted as above, will clearly show that on the transfer of the vehicle about which intimation was given though not strictly as required under Section 103-A of the Act and in the absence of refusal from the insurer the Policy already given by the Insurance Company to the transferor will not lapse. " In G. Govindan v. New India Assurance ( 'o. ltd and Ors. , (1999] 3 SCC 754, this Court had occasion to refer to the decisions of the Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Kondaiah 's case (supra), Complete Insulations Ltd. (supra) and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sheela Rani (Smt. ) and Ors. , in the context of the 1988 Act and, after contrasting it with the provisions of 1939 Act, held (vide para 13 ): ·Jn our opinion, both under the old act and under the new Act the Legislature was anxious to protect the third party (victim) interest. It appears that what implicit in the provision of the old Act is now made explicit.

presumably in view of the conflicting decisions on this aspect among the various High Courts. " In Rikhi Ram and Anr. v. Sukharnia (Sm!. ) and Ors. , [~003] 3 SCC 97, • UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. SHIMLA,. _ TILAK SINGH [SRIKRISHNA. J. ] 765 a Bench of three learned judges of this Court had occasion to consider section I03-A of the 1939 Act. this court re-affirmed the decision in U Govindan 's case (supra) and added that the liability of an insurer does not cease even if the owner or purchaser fails to give intimation of transfer to the insurance company, as the purpose of the legislation was to protect the rights and interests of the third party. Thus, in our view, the situation in law which arises from the failure of the transferor to notify the insurer of the fact of transfer of ownership of the insured vehicle is no different, whether under section 103-A of the 1939 Act or under section 157 of the 1988 Act in so far as the liability towards a third party is concerned.

Thus, whether the old Act applies to the facts before us, or the new Act applies, as far as the deceased third party was concerned, the result would not be different. Hence, the contention of the appellant on the second issue must fail, either way, making a decision on the first contention unnecessary, for deciding the second issue. HowP,ver, it may be necessary to decide which Act applies for deciding the third contention. In our view, it is not the transfer of the vehicle but the accident which furnishes the cause of action for the application before the tribunal. Undoubtedly, the accident took place after the 1988 Act come into force. Hence it is the 1988 Act which would govern the situation. Turning to the third contention of the appellant, the question as to whether a gratuitous passenger would be covered by a statutory insurance policy, has been the subject matter of a number of decisions of this Court. A. The 1939 Act:- In Pushpabai Purshottam Udesh and Ors. v. Mis.

Ranjit Ginning and Pressing Co. (P) Ltd. and Anr. , [1977] 2 SCC 745 the insurance company had raised the contention that the scope of statutory insurance under section 95( 1)(a) read with 95( I)(b)(i) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 does not cover the injury suffered by a passenger and, since there was a limited liability under the insurance policy, the risk of the insurance company would be limited to the extent it was specifically covered. After referring to the English Road Traffic Act, 1960, and Halsbury's Laws of England (Third Edition) this Court came to the conclusion that section 95 of the 1930 Act required that the policy of insurance must be policy insuring the insured against any liability incurred by him in respect of death or bodily injury to a third party and rejected the contention that the words "third party" were wide en01. igh to cover all persons except the insured and the insurer. This Court held as 766 SLPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] 3 S. C. R.

under : (vide para 20) "Therefore it is not required that a policy of insurance should cover risk to the passengers who are not carried for hire or reward. As under Section 95 the risk to a passenger in a vehicle who is not carried for hire or reward is not required to be insured the plea of the counsel for the insurance company will have to be accepted and the insurance company held not liable under the requirements of the Motor Vehicles Act. " In Amrit Lal Sood and Anr. v. Kaushalya Devi Thapar and Ors. , (1998] 3 sec 744 it was held that in that particular case that the terms of the policy were wide enough to cover a gratuitous passenger and, therefore, there was liability towards the gratuitous person. In Dr. T. V. Jose v. Chacko P. M. alias Thankachan and Ors. , (200 I] 8 SCC 748 Variava, J. had an occasion to survey the law with regard to the liability of insurance companies in respect of gratuitous passengers.

After referring to a number of decisions of this Court the learned Judge observed (vide para 20) "the law on this subject is clear. a third-party policy does not cover liability to gratuitous passengers who are not carried for hire or reward. " The insurer company was held not liable to reimburse the appellant. Thus even under the 1939 Act the established legal position was that unless there was a specific coverage of the risk pertaining to a gratutious passengers in the policy, the insurer was not liable. We find that clause (ii) of the proviso to Section 95( 1) has been eliminated while drafting section 147 of the 1988 Act.

Under sub-section (l)(b) under the 1988 Act, compulsory policy of insurance required under the statute must now provide against any liability which may be incurred by the owner of the vehicle "in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any person including owner of the goods or authorised representative carried in the vehicle or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicles in a public place. " B. The 1988 Act: The argument that the risk pertaining to a third party would extend to a person other than the parties to the insurance contract was raised in New India Assurance Company v. Satpal Singh and Ors. , (2000] J SCC 237 where after contrasting the language of section 95 (I) of the I939 Act with the UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD, SHIMLA r. TILAK SINGH [SRIKRISHNA, J.

) 767 provisions of section 147 (I) of the 1988 Act this Court held: "The result is that under the new Act an insurance policy covering third party risk is not required to exclude gratutious passengers in vehicles, no matter that the vehicle is of any type or class. Hence the decisions rendered under the old Act vis-a-vis gratuitous passengers are of no avail while considering the liability of the insurance company in respect of any accident which occurred or would occur after the new Act came into force. " The view expressed in Satpal Singh 's case (supra) however, has been specifically overruled in the subsequent judgment of a Bench of three judges in New India Assurance Company v. Asha Rani and Ors. , [2003] 2 SCC 223. In that case the discussion arose in connection with carrying passengers in a goods vehicle.

This Court after referring to the terms of section 147 of the 1988 Act, as contrasted with section 95 of the 1939 Act, held that the judgment in Satpal Singh 's case (supra) had been incorrectly decided and that the insurer will not be liable to pay compensation. In the concurring judgment of Sinha, J. after contrasting the language used in the 1939 Act with that of the 1988 Act, it has been observed (vide paras 25 and 27): "25. Section 147 of 1988 Act, inter alia, prescribes compulsory coverage against the death of or bodily injury to any passenger of "public service vehicle". Proviso appended thereto categorically states that compulsory coverage in respect of drivers and conductors of public service vehicle and employees carried in a goods vehicle would be limited to the liability under the Workmen's Compensation Act. It does not speak of any passenger in a 'good carriage'. 27.

Furthermore, sub-clauses (i) of Clause (b) of sub-section (I) of Section 147 speaks of liability which may be incurred by the owner of a vehicle in respect of death of or bodily injury to any person or damage to any property of a third caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place. Whereas sub-clause (ii) thereof deals with liability which may be incurred by the owner of a vehicle against the death of or bodily injury to any passenger of a public service . caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place. " In our view, although the observation made in Asha Rani's case (supra) were in connection with carrying passengers in a goods vehicle, the same would apply with equal force to gratuitous passengers in any other vehicle also.

Thus, we must uphold the contention of the appellant-insurance compan:,, that it owed no liability toward the injuries suffered by the deceased Rajinder Singh who was a pillion rider, as the insurance policy was a statutory policy, and hence it did not cover the risk of death of or bodily injury to gratuitous passenger. For the aforesaid reasons, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment holding that the appellant-insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation awarded to the claimants. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No orders as to costs. RP. Appeal allowed.