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

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  5201 of 2007

PETITIONER: United India Insurance Company Limited

RESPONDENT: Serjerao and Ors

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 14/11/2007

BENCH: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & P. SATHASIVAM

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.9417 of 2005) With

C.A. No.5202/2007 @ S.L.P.(C) No.9418/2005 C.A. No.5203/2007 @ S.L.P.(C) No.9419/2005 C.A. No.5204/2007 @ S.L.P.(C) No.9420/2005 C.A. No.5205/2007 @ S.L.P.(C) No.9421/2005 C.A. No.5207/2007 @ S.L.P.(C) No.9422/2005 and C.A. No.5208/2007 @ S.L.P.(C) No.9423/2005

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1.      Leave granted.

2.      Challenge in these appeals is to the order passed by a  learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad  Bench dismissing the writ petitions filed by the appellant  (described hereinafter as ‘the Insurance Company’).  The  controversy lies within a very narrow compass.

3.      The respondents were travelling in the Trolly attached to  a Tractor as labourers. They claimed to have suffered injuries  because the Tractor with the Trolly in each case met with an  accident.  Petitions claiming compensation under the Motor  Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short ‘the Act’) were filed along with  application under Section 140 of the Act.  Order was passed  by the learned Additional District Judge and Ex-officio  Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Latur (in short ‘the  MACT’) on the principle of no fault liability. The Insurance  Company took the stand that it had no liability in respect of  the persons travelling in the Trolly and the owner of the  Tractor is liable to pay compensation.  This plea was rejected  by the MACT.  Appeal in terms of Section 173 of the Act in  each case was preferred before the High Court.  Learned Single  Judge, prima-facie, was of the view that the appeal was not  maintainable.  Nevertheless, he referred the matter to the  Division Bench, which, it appears referred it to a Full Bench.  While the matter was pending consideration by the Full  Bench, execution proceedings were filed. Therefore, writ  petitions were filed before the High Court.  The High Court, by  the impugned order in each case, dismissed the writ petitions  holding that though arguable questions were involved, the writ  petitions did not deserve consideration.            4.      In support of the appeals, learned counsel for the  appellant-Insurance Company submitted that the appeals in  terms of Section 173 of the Act were maintainable and in any  event, the Insurance Company has no liability in respect of the

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

persons travelling in trollies attached to the Tractors.  

5.      There is no appearance on behalf of the respondents  when the matter was called.

6.      So far as the question of maintainability aspect is  concerned, the issue is concluded by a judgment of this Court  in Smt. Yallwwa & Ors. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and  Anr. (2007 (8) SCALE 77).   

7.      In paragraphs 16 to 19 of the judgment, it was observed  as follows:

\02316. The question which is required to  be considered is what would be the  meaning of the term \021award\022 when such  a contention is raised. Although in a  given situation having regard to the  liability of the owner of the vehicle, a  claim Tribunal need not go into the  question as to whether the owner of the  vehicle in question was at fault or not,  but determination of the liability of the  insurance company, in our opinion,  stands on a different footing.  When a  statutory liability has been imposed  upon the owner, in our opinion, the  same cannot extend the liability of an  insurer to indemnify the owner,  although in terms of the insurance  policy or under the Act, it would not be  liable therefor. 17.     In a given case, the statutory  liability of an insurance company,  therefore, either may be nil or a sum  lower than the amount specified under  Section 140 of the Act. Thus, when a  separate application is filed in terms of  Section 140 of the Act, in terms of  Section 168 thereof, an insurer has to  be given a notice in which event, it goes  without saying, it would be open to the  insurance company to plead and prove  that it is not liable at all. 18.     Furthermore, it is not in dispute  that there can be more than one award  particularly when a sum paid may have  to be adjusted from the final award.  Keeping in view the provisions of  Section 168 of the Act, there cannot be  any doubt whatsoever that an award for  enforcing the right under Section 140 of  the Act is also required to be passed  under Section 168 only after the parties  concerned have filed their pleadings  and have been given a reasonable  opportunity of being heard.  A Claims  Tribunal, thus, must be satisfied that  the conditions precedent specified in  Section 140 of the Act have been  substantiated, which is the basis for  making an award. 19.     Furthermore, evidently, the  amount directed to be paid even in  terms of Chapter-X of the Act must as

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

of necessity, in the event of non- compliance of directions has to be  recovered in terms of Section 174 of the  Act.  There is no other provision in the  Act which takes care of such a  situation.  We, therefore, are of the  opinion that even when objections are  raised by the insurance company in  regard to its liability, the Tribunal is  required to render a decision upon the  issue, which would attain finality and,  thus, the same would be an award  within the meaning of Section 173 of  the Act.\024

8.      So far as the question of liability regarding labourers  travelling in trollies is concerned, the matter was considered  by this Court in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Brij  Mohan and Ors. (2007 (7) SCALE 753) and it was held that the  Insurance Company has no liability.  In view of the aforesaid  two decisions of this Court, we set aside the impugned order  in each case and remit the matters to the High Court to  consider the matters afresh in the light of what has been  stated by this Court in Smt. Yallwwa\022s case (supra) and Brij  Mohan\022s case (supra).

9.      The appeals are accordingly disposed of with no order as  to costs.