24 September 2004
Supreme Court
Download

DHANRAJ Vs NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.

Bench: S. N. VARIAVA,A. K. MATHUR
Case number: C.A. No.-006270-006271 / 2004
Diary number: 21448 / 2003
Advocates: PRATIBHA JAIN Vs DEBASIS MISRA


1

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  6270-71 of 2004

PETITIONER: Dhanraj  

RESPONDENT: New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 24/09/2004

BENCH: S. N. Variava & A. K. Mathur

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos.20826-20827 of 2003)

S. N. VARIAVA, J.

       Special leave granted.

       Heard parties.

       These Appeals arise out of a Judgment of the High Court of  Madhya Pradesh dated 21st July 2003.

       Briefly stated the facts are as follows.

       On 26th August 2000, the Appellant along with certain other  persons was traveling in his own Jeep.  Around 6.30 A.M. the Jeep met  with an accident.  In the accident, the Appellant as well as the other  passengers received injuries.  A number of Claim Petitions came to be  filed.  The Appellant also filed a Claim Petition.           The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) held the Driver of  the Jeep responsible for the accident.  In all the Claim Petitions filed by  the other passengers MACT directed that the Appellant (as the owner)  as well as the Driver and Insurance Company were liable to pay  compensation.  In these Appeals, we are not concerned with those  Petitions and the Orders thereon.

       In the Claim Petition filed by the Petitioner, the Motor Accident  Claims Tribunal directed the driver and the Insurance Company to pay  compensation to the Petitioner.         The Insurance Company filed an  Appeal.  That Appeal has been allowed by the impugned Judgment.  It  has been held that as the Petitioner was the owner of the vehicle the  Insurance Company is not liable to pay him any compensation.

       We have seen the Policy.  It is a comprehensive policy.   The  question that arises is whether a comprehensive Policy would cover  the risk of injury to the owner of the vehicle also.  Section 147 of the  Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 reads as follows:-

"147. Requirements of policies and limits of  liability.\027(1) In order to comply with the  requirements of this Chapter, a policy of insurance  must be a policy which\027

(a)     is issued by a person who is an authorized  insurer; or

2

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

(b)     insurer the person or classes of persons  specified in the policy to the extent specified  in sub-section (2) \026

(i)     against any liability which may be  incurred by him in respect of the death of or  bodily injury to any person, including owner  of the goods or his authorized  representative carried in the vehicle or  damage to any property of a third party  caused by or arising out of the use of the  vehicle in a public place;

(ii)    against the death of or bodily injury to  any passenger of a public service vehicle  caused by or arising out of the use of the  vehicle in a public place:

Provided that a policy shall not be required\027

(i)     to cover liability in respect of the death,  arising out of and in the course of his employment,  of the employee of a person insured by the policy  or in respect of bodily injury sustained by such an  employee arising out of and in the course of his  employment other than a liability arising under the  Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923) in  respect of the death of or bodily injury to, any such  employee\027

(a)     engaged in driving the vehicle, or

(b)     if it is a public service vehicle engaged as  conductor of the vehicle or in examining tickets on  the vehicle, or

(c)     if it is a goods carriage, being carried in the  vehicle, or  

(ii)    to cover any contractual liability.

Explanation.\027For the removal of doubts, it is  hereby declared that the death of or bodily injury  to any person or damage to any property of a third  party shall be deemed to have been caused by or  to have arisen out of, the use of a vehicle in a  public place notwithstanding that the person who is  dead or injured or the property which is damaged  was not in a public place at the time of the  accident, if the act or omission which led to the  accident occurred in a public place.

(2) Subject to the proviso to sub-section (1), a  policy of insurance referred to in sub-section (1),  shall cover any liability incurred in respect of any  accident, up to the following limits, namely:--

(a) save as provided in clause (b), the  amount of liability incurred;

(b) in respect of damage to any property of  a third party, a limit of rupees six thousand:

Provided that any policy of insurance issued with  any limited liability and in force, immediately

3

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

before the commencement of this Act, shall  continue to be effective for a period of four months  after such commencement or till the date of expiry  of such policy whichever is earlier."         

       Thus, an insurance policy covers the liability incurred by the  insured in respect of death of or bodily injury to any person  (including an owner of the goods or his authorized representative)  carried in the vehicle or damage to any property of a third party  caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle.  Section 147 does  not require an Insurance Company to assume risk for death or  bodily injury to the owner of the vehicle.                   In the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sunita  Rathi & Ors. [1998 ACJ 121] it has been held that the liability of  an Insurance Company is only for the purpose of indemnifying the  insured against liabilities incurred towards third person or in respect  of damages to property.  Thus, where the insured i.e. an owner of  the vehicle has no liability to a third party the Insurance Company  has no liability also.

In this case, it has not been shown that the policy covered  any risk for injury to the owner himself.  We are unable to accept  the contention that the premium of Rs.4,989/- paid under the  heading "Own damage" is for covering liability towards personal  injury.  Under the heading "Own damage", the words "premium on  vehicle and non-electrical accessories" appear.  It is thus clear that  this premium is towards damage to the vehicle and not for injury to  the person of the owner.  An owner of a vehicle can only claim  provided a personal accident insurance has been taken out.  In this  case, there is no such insurance.

               We, therefore, see no infirmity in the Judgment of the High  Court.  We see no reason to interfere.  The Appeals stand  dismissed.  There will be no order as to costs.