- (1.) This is an appeal by the insurer of truck bearing registration No. M.P.A.-2280, which met with an accident with another truck bearing registration No. UHJ-8287. The claimants were travelling alongwith buffalo in truck No. MPA-2280 alongwith his brother-in-law. Tribunal by the impugned order dated 29.3.1994 has held that the accident has been caused due to contributory negligence of the drivers of both the vehicles and, therefore, apportioned the liability to the extent of fifty percent on both the trucks. Tribunal has awarded as sum of Rs. 1.20 lacs, out of which appellant has been held liable to pay Rs. 60,000/-. Heard Sri A.K. Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri K.N. Yadav, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. Despite the service of notice, no one appears on behalf of the owner of the vehicle. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that on 6.9.1989 prior to amendment in Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). Section 147 of the Act as it existed at the time of the accident, the insurance company was liable for payment of compensation in respect of death or bodily injury to any person or damage to any property of a third party. There was no liability in respect of death or bodily injury to the owner of the goods or of his authorized representative. The word "including owner of the goods or his authorised representative" has been added under Section 147(b)(i) of the Act w.e.f. 14.11.1994 by Act No. 54 of 1994 and, therefore, the appellant is not liable to pay any compensation. Reliance is placed on the Three Judges Bench of Apex Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani and others, , : 2003 (1) TAC 1. He further submitted that the owner of the vehicle is only liable to pay the compensation. He further submitted that interest awarded @ 10% is excessive.
(2.) I find substance in the argument of learned counsel for the appellant. Prior to 14.11.1994, under Section 147(b)(i) of the Act liability of insurance company was in respect of death or bodily injury to any person or damage to any property of a third party. By Act No. 54 of 1994 w.e.f. 14.11.1994 the word "including owner of the goods or his authorized representative" has been added. The question whether the word "any person includes the owner of the goods or his authorized representative prior to 14.11.1994 or the amendment is clarificatory in nature came up for consideration before the Apex Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani and others . The Apex Court held as follows: 9. In Satpal's case , the Court assumed that the provisions of Section 95(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 are identical with Section 147(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as it stood prior to its amendment. But a careful scrutiny of the provisions would make it clear that prior to the amendment of 1994 it was not necessary for the insurer to insure against the owner of the goods or his authorised representative being carried in a goods vehicle. On an erroneous impression this Court came to the conclusion that the insurer would be liable to pay compensation in respect of the death or bodily injury caused to either the owner of the goods or his authorised representative when being carried in a goods vehicle the accident occurred. If the Motor Vehicles Act of 1994 is examined, particularly Section 46 of Act 6 of 1991 by which expression 'injury to any person' in the original Act stood substituted by the expression 'injury to any person' including owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle the conclusion is irresistible that prior to the aforesaid amendment Act of 1994, even if widest interpretation is given to the expression 'to any person' it will not cover either the owner of the goods or his authorised representative being carried in the vehicle. The objects and reasons of Clause 46 also states that it seeks to amend Section 147 to include owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle for the purposes of liability under the Insurance Policy. It is not doubt true that sometimes the Legislature amends the law by way of amplification and clarification of an inherent position which is there in the statute, but a plain meaning being given to the words used in the statute, as it stood prior to its amendment of 1994, and as it stands subsequent to its amendment in 1994 and bearing in mind the objects and reasons engrafted in the amended provisions referred to earlier, it is difficult for us to construe that the expression Including owner of the goods or his authorized representative carried in the vehicle which was added to the pre-existed expression 'injury to any person' is either clarification or amplification of the pre-existing statute. On the other hand it clearly demonstrates that the Legislature wanted to bring within the sweep of Section 147 and making it compulsory for the insurer to insure even in case of a goods vehicle, the owner of the goods or his authorised representative being carried in a goods vehicle when that vehicle met with an accident and the owner of the goods or his representative either dies or suffers bodily injury. The judgment of this Court in Satpal's case, therefore must be held to have not been correctly decided and the impugned judgments of the Tribunal as well as that of the High Court accordingly are set aside and these appeals are allowed. It is held that the insurer will not be liable for paying compensation to the owner of goods or his authorised representative on being carried in a goods vehicle when that vehicle meets with an accident and the owner of the goods or his representative dies or suffers any bodily injury.
(3.) The Apex Court in the cases of Tejinder Singh Gujral v. Inderjit Singh and another, , : 2007 (1) TAC 15 (SC), as well as National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Keshav Bahadur and others, , : 2004 (2) TAC 1 (SC), has allowed interest @ 9% per annum and following the aforesaid two decisions, the Division Bench of this Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Salil Prakash Gupta, , : 2012 (3) TAC 359, has also awarded interest only @ 9% and modified the order of the Tribunal to that extent. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and the decision, referred hereinabove, I am of the view that the interest awarded @ 10% is excessive and it is accordingly reduced to 9%. The order of the Tribunal is modified to this extent only. The appeal is allowed as stated above.;