IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(1998) 3 SCC 744
Amrit Lal Sood & Anr.
Smt. Kaushalya Devi Thapar & Ors.
Date of Judgement
17 March, 1998
Hon’ble Justice K.T.Thomas, Hon’ble Justice M. Srinivasan
The appellant met with an accident while driving the car and he claimed compensation of 1,25,000/- by approaching the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The tribunal gave a compensation amount of 15,800 and held that the accident happened only because of the negligence on the part of the driver. He further filed an appeal in the High Court and awarded with the compensation of 20,800/- with a view that the claimant is not liable for compensation since he was a gratuitous traveler. The appellant further appealed to the Supreme Court.
Statues and Provisions Involved
- Section 11(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1936.
- Section 94 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1936.
- Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1936.
- Section 96 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1936.
Brief Facts and Inferences:
On August 25, 1970, the fiat vehicle claimed that the appealing party crashed into a merchandise transporter on Shimla-Kalka National Highway close Kandaghat Post office. The vehicle was being driven by the primary appealing party, a sibling of the subsequent litigant. The vehicle was protected with the fifth respondent. Kishan Sarup Thapar, a promoter of Chandigarh who was going in the vehicle got harmed and was hospitalized for quite a while. He moved toward the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Solan and Srimur Districts asserting pay of Rs. 1,25,000/-. The proprietors and drivers of both the vehicles, just as the backup plans, were impleaded as gatherings. The Tribunal found that the mishap happened because of the carelessness of the driver of the vehicle and passed an honor for Rs. 15,800/- against the appellants and the fifth respondent thus. The petitioner recorded an intrigue in the High Court asserting more pay while the safety net provider (fifth respondent), documented an intrigue questioning its risk to fulfill the case. The petitioner’s allure was permitted by a scholarly judge to a limited extent and the remuneration was improved to Rs. 20,800/-. The scholarly judge held that the petitioner was an unwarranted traveler going in the vehicle and the backup plan was along these lines, not subject.
- Whether the safety net provider is obligated to fulfill the case for payment made by the individual voyaging unwarrantedly in the vehicle?
- Whether the liability of the insurer here solely depends on the terms of the contract?
The materials on record to be adequate to help the upgraded improved remuneration. The obligation of the backup plan, for this situation, relies upon the provisions of the agreement between the guaranteed and the safety net provider as apparent from the arrangement. Section 94 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1936 propels the proprietor of an engine vehicle to guarantee the vehicle consistent with the prerequisites of Chapter VIII of the Act. Section 95 of the Act gives that an approach of protection must be one which guarantees the individual against any risk which might be acquired by him in regard of death or substantial damage to any individual or harm to any property of outsider brought about by or emerging out of the utilization of the vehicle in an open spot.
The area doesn’t be that as it may require an approach to cover the hazard to travelers who are not conveyed for contract or any reward. The statutory protection doesn’t cover damage endured by tenants of the vehicle who are not conveyed for contract or reward and the guarantor can’t be held at risk under the Act.
- The Court also followed the case of the premier Insurance Co. Ltd. and others v. Gambhirsing Galabsing and ors[i] Prabhudayal Agarwal v. Saraswati Bai and anr[ii], Madras Motor and General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Katanreddi Subbareddy and others[iii], Pushpabai Purshottam Udeshi & Ors. v. M/S. Ranjit Ginning & Pressing Co (p) Ltd & Anr[iv], etc. to conclude this case that, here, the liability of the guarantor can’t be exempted.
- Nothing in this policy or any underwriting hereon will influence the privilege of any individual to reimburse by this arrangement or some other individual to recuperate a sum under or by the righteousness of the arrangements of the Motor Vehicles Act. 1939, Section 96, But the Insured will reimburse to the Company all entireties paid by the Company which the Company would not have been obligated to pay however they said arrangements. The insurance agency is likewise subject to meet the case of the petitioner and fulfills the honor passed by the Tribunal and adjusted by the High Court.
- The judgment of the High Court to the extent that it absolves the insurance agency (fifth respondent in this) from the obligation, is saved. The order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court can be implemented against the fifth respondent too. The appeal is permitted to the degree showed previously. The parties will bear their particular expenses.
AVOIDANCE OF CERTAIN TERMS AND RIGHT OF RECOVERY– Which understands along these lines: “Nothing in this policy (the Motor Vehicle’s act) or any support hereon will influence the privilege of any individual repaid by this provision or some other individual to recoup a sum under or by temperance of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. 1939, Section 96, But the Insured will reimburse to the Company all totals paid by the Company which the Company would not have been obligated to pay but the said provisions.”
The Act considers the probability of the strategy of protection undertaking risk to outsiders giving such an agreement between the safety net provider and safeguarded, that is, the individual who affected the approach, as would make the organization qualified for recuperating the entire or part of the sum it hosts paid to the third gathering from the guaranteed. The guarantor in this way goes about as security for the outsider concerning its acknowledging harms for the wounds endured, however opposite the guaranteed; the organization doesn’t attempt that obligation or embraces it to a restricted degree. It is in perspective on such plausibility, that different conditions are set down in the approach. Such conditions, in any case, are viable just between the guaranteed and the organization and must be disregarded when thinking about the risk of the organization to outsiders. This is referenced unmistakably in the approach itself and is referenced under the heading ‘Shirking of specific terms and privileges of recuperate’, just as ‘An Important Notice’ in the calendar to the strategy. The evasion proviso says that nothing in the strategy or any support there will influence the privilege of any individual repaid by the arrangement or some other individual reimburse by the approach or some other individual to recoup a sum under or by prudence of the arrangements of the Act. It additionally gives that the safeguarded will reimburse the organization all entireties paid by it which the organization would not have been obligated to pay however for the said arrangements of the Act. The ‘Significant Notice’ refers to that any installment made by the organization by reason of more extensive terms showing up in the testament to agree to the Act is recoverable from the safeguarded, and alludes to the shirking proviso. Consequently, the agreement between the protected and the organization may not accommodate all take liabilities which the organization needs to embrace opposite the outsiders, in perspective on the arrangements of the Act.
The risk of the safety net provider, right now, on the details of the agreement between the safeguarded and the backup plan as apparent from the approach. Section 94 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1936 propels the proprietor of an engine vehicle to guarantee the vehicle consistent with the necessities of Chapter Viii of the Act. Section 95 of the Act gives a provision that of protection must be one which guarantees the individual against any obligation which might be brought about by him in regard of death or real damage to any individual or harm to any property of outsider brought about by or emerging out of the utilization of the vehicle in an open spot. The section doesn’t, be that as it may require a provision to cover the hazard to travelers who are not conveyed for contract or reward. The statutory protection doesn’t cover damage endured by inhabitants of the vehicle who are not conveyed for contract or reward and the backup plan can’t be held at risk under the Act.
Edited by Parul Soni
Approved & Published – Sakshi Raje
[i] Insurance Co. Ltd. and others v. Gambhirsing Galabsing and others AIR 1975 Gujarat 133.
[ii]Prabhudayal Agarwal v. Saraswati Bai and Ors 1975 A.C.J. 355.
[iii] Madras Motor and General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Katanreddi Subbareddy and others 1975 A.C.J. 95.
[iv] Pushpabai Purshottam Udeshi & Ors. v. M/S. Ranjit Ginning & Pressing Co (p) Ltd & Anr (1977) 2 S.C.C. 745.