- (1.) The appellant/non-claimant, National Insurance Co Ltd., Insurer of the offending vehicle has preferred the present misc. appeals, assailing the judgment and award dated 22.03.2000 of learned Judge, M.A.C.T., Rajsamand, fastening the liability upon the National Insurance Company Ltd. in terms of Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of New India Assurance Co. Vs. Satpal Singh, 2000 AIR(SC) 235, which later on came to be overruled by the Hon'ble Apex Court itself in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Asha Rani & Ors., 2003 AIR(SC) 607, and the claimants have also preferred misc. appeals for enhancement of the compensation on account of unfortunate death of their relatives in the accident in question.
(2.) The relevant findings of the learned Tribunal in the impugned judgment and award about the accident and on Issue No.3 fastening the liability to satisfy the award on the non-claimant, National Insurance Co. Ltd., are quoted herein below for ready reference: - 1639931-1 1639931-2 1639931-3 1639931-4 1639931-5
(3.) It is an admitted position that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satpal Singh has been overruled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Asha Rani & Ors. . The para 9 of the aforesaid judgment is quoted herein below for ready reference: - "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 necessary for the insurer to insure against he 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 Amended 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 the 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 no dobut true that sometimes the legislature amends the law by way of amplification of an inherent position which is there in the statute, but a plaint 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 authorised representative carried in the vehicle which was added to the pre-existed expression 'injury to any person' is either clarificatory 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 judgment 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 goods or his representative dies or suffers any bodily injury.";