REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.                       OF 2009 (Arising out of SLP © Nos. 11440-11442 of 2005)

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. ....Appellant

Versus

Vimla Devi and Ors.  ....Respondents

J U D G M E N T

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. Leave granted.  

2. Challenge in these appeals is to the order passed by a Division Bench

of the Uttaranchal High Court. Three appeals filed by the appellant against

the  common  judgment  and  award  dated  10.10.2003  passed  by  Motor

Accidents  Claims  Tribunal,  District  Judge,  Tehri  Garhwal  (in  short  the

‘MACT’)  were dismissed.  It is the case of the claimants who filed a Claim

Petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short  the

‘Act’) that because of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle

i.e. UP.07-F-4885 the vehicle fell into a ditch resulting in the death of three

persons namely, Sohan Singh, Uttam Singh and a boy Rakesh Singh aged

about 12 years.  The dependants of the deceased filed three Claim Petitions

for  compensation.  The  appellant-Oriental  Insurance  Company  took  the

stand the accident occurred due to mechanical failure of the vehicle and in

any event the insurance company had no liability as the offending vehicle

was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the policy and

the driver of the offending vehicle did not have a valid driving license. The

MACT  took  the  view  that  the  policy  was  operative  for  a  period  from

5.7.1999 to 4.7.2000 and since the accident occurred on 13.4.2000 it was

within the validity period.  The MACT also noticed that the driver’s license

was valid during the period of time when the accident occurred. The MACT

and the High Court held that the vehicle was the subject matter of insurance

for  goods  as  well  as  for  passengers,  though  it  was  a  goods  commercial

vehicle. MACT did not accept the stand of the appellant-Insurance company

holding that no premium was paid for any passenger. The High Court also

accepted the said view.  

2

3. In support of the appeals, learned counsel for the appellant submitted

that the original records produced by the insurance company clearly show

that  no  premium  was  received  in  respect  of  any  non  fare  paying  non

employees. It was the stand of learned counsel for the appellant that both

the MACT and the High Court  erroneously held that  the premiums were

paid for the goods as well as for the passengers. In fact no premium was

paid  for  passengers  as  admittedly  the  vehicle  was  a  goods  commercial

vehicle. The appeal survives in respect of respondent No.9. The details of

premium paid  by  the  owner  have  been  indicated  in  the  policy  that  the

following amounts were paid:

Third party liability Rs.2,779.00

Third Party Property Damage Rs.     75.00

NFPE Rs.     50.00

Driver Rs.     15.00

Coolie Rs. 15.00

4. The  MACT  and  the  High  Court  appear  to  have  proceeded  on

erroneous premises that the premium was also paid in respect of goods and

passengers.  In the aforesaid circumstances we think it appropriate to remit

3

the  matter  to  the  MACT to  consider  the  original  documents  relating  to

payment of premium which have been summarized in the paper book the

amount of premium paid, and determine the person from whom the recovery

is to be made. Without expressing any opinion on the merits, we remit the

matter  to  MACT for  taking  a  decision.  It  shall  permit  the  appellant  to

produce such material or evidence which according to it has relevance.  

4. The appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent.

…………………………………….J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

……………………………………J. (ASOK KUMAR GANGULY)

New Delhi, February 09, 2009

4