- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Sajid Mian v. Ganga And Others
Structured Summary of the Court Opinion
Factual and Procedural Background
On June 6, 1984, Dev Karan, Rang Lal and Ratan, along with many others, were travelling in a trolley attached to tractor No. RJX 1313 to visit a temple in Ranthambore Fort. While returning, the trolley overturned on a slope; Rang Lal, Dev Karan and Ratan died and many others were injured. The tractor was being driven by Fareed Mian.
The tractor originally belonged to Narain, who sold it to Sajid Mian on September 7, 1981 for Rs. 26,000/-. The insurance policy for the period August 25, 1983 to August 24, 1984 (covering third party risk) was issued in the name of Narain; the premium was, however, paid by Sajid Mian.
Three claim petitions (Nos. 115 of 1984, 116 of 1984 and 26 of 1985) were filed by claimants of the deceased. The petitions were consolidated by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sawai Madhopur on January 20, 1987. An application under Section 92A of the Motor Vehicles Act for immediate compensation under no fault liability was filed; by order dated August 29, 1987 the Tribunal directed Sajid Mian to pay Rs. 15,000/- each in the three petitions.
The Tribunal later awarded (by order dated October 9, 1987) Rs. 52,500/- to claimants of Dev Karan, Rs. 70,000/- each to claimants of Rang Lal and Ratan, and held the driver Fareed and owner (non-petitioner) Sajid jointly and severally liable; claims against Narain and the insurance company were dismissed. Multiple appeals (Misc. Appeal Nos. 320–325 and 323–325 of 1987, arising from these orders) were filed by Sajid Mian challenging various aspects of the Tribunal's orders. This opinion disposes of all those appeals in a single order because they arise from the same accident.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the insurance company (United India Insurance Co. Ltd.) is liable to pay compensation in respect of the accident that occurred on June 6, 1984, given that the insurance policy for the period covering the accident was in the name of the original owner (Narain) though the vehicle had been sold to Sajid Mian and premiums were paid by Sajid.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant (Sajid Mian) — Counsel: Mr. S.M. Ali
- The third party risk policy was valid from August 25, 1983 to August 24, 1984 and therefore covered the accident on June 6, 1984; premium had been paid by Sajid Mian.
- Although the vehicle had been sold by Narain to Sajid on September 7, 1981, the fact of change of ownership was not recorded by the insurer even though the premium was being paid by Sajid and the insurer had knowledge of that fact.
- Chapter VIII of the Motor Vehicles Act is social legislation intended to compensate third parties; the owner has a statutory duty to insure, and the insurer must pay third party claims irrespective of the proprietary title (i.e., whether the policy stood in Narain's name).
- Because Sajid paid the premium, he should be indemnified by the insurer for liabilities imposed on him due to the accident; the insurer cannot rely on the vehicle's sale to show a lapse of policy except on grounds permissible under Section 96(2) of the Act.
- Reliance was placed on Madineni Kondaiah v. Yaseen Fatima (1986 ACJ 1 (AP)) in support of these contentions.
Claimants — Counsel: Mr. N.K. Jain
- Supported the arguments advanced by Mr. S.M. Ali on behalf of Sajid Mian.
Respondent/Insurer (United India Insurance Co. Ltd.) — Counsel: Mr. A.K. Luhadiya
- Contended that the tractor had been sold to Sajid on September 7, 1981 and that the policy was in Narain's name for the period when the accident occurred; therefore the insurance company could not be held liable.
- Argued that the trolley in which the accident occurred was itself a vehicle which ought to have been separately registered under the Motor Vehicles Act; because the trolley was not proved to be registered, no liability could be fastened on the insurer even if the tractor had been insured.
- Asserted there was no privity of contract between Sajid Mian (transferee) and the insurance company, and thus the insurer should not be held liable for obligations of Sajid.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Madineni Kondaiah v. Yaseen Fatima, 1986 ACJ 1 (AP) | Cited by appellant to support the proposition that insurer must remain liable where premium was paid and policy covered the risk despite transfer of vehicle. | The court acknowledged reliance on this decision by the appellant as supporting the contention that insurer's liability survives despite transfer; the opinion references it as supporting authority for appellant's position. |
| New Asiatic Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pessumal Dhanamal Aswani, 1958-65 ACJ 559 (SC) | Explains purpose of Chapter VIII — insurance against third party risks to ensure third parties can recover damages irrespective of the driver's financial condition; provisions must be construed to secure that object. | The court relied on the Supreme Court's observation to emphasize that third party risk provisions protect third parties and are to be construed to achieve that social-objective; this supported rejecting insurer's broader defenses. |
| New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sheela Rani, 1988 ACJ 206 (Rajasthan) | Division Bench decision of this court that fortified the view taken by the present court concerning insurer's liability under the Act. | The court stated it was "fortified" by this Division Bench decision, using it to support its conclusion that insurer's liability should be recognized in similar circumstances. |
| New India Assurance Co. v. Kusum Jaluria, S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 342 of 1985 (judgment dated March 24, 1987) | Addressed contention that an accident caused by a trolley attached to a tractor (where the trolley itself was not insured) does not absolve the insurer of the tractor from liability. | The court relied on this authority (Justice P.C. Jain's decision) to reject the insurer's contention that absence of separate registration/insurance of the trolley negated liability; it held that the tractor's insurer could still be liable where the trolley moved with the tractor and the driver was negligent. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court's analysis proceeded from statutory interpretation and application of precedents cited in the record. Key steps in the court's reasoning as expressed in the opinion are:
- The court held that an insurer's available defenses are limited to those enumerated in Section 96(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The insurer cannot advance defenses beyond those statutorily permitted.
- Given that limitation, the insurer was not entitled to assert that it was not liable merely because there was no subsisting contract between the insurer and the transferee (Sajid). The court explicitly rejected the argument that lack of privity between the insurer and transferee absolved the insurer.
- The court emphasized that third party risk under Chapter VIII of the Motor Vehicles Act is unrelated to proprietary interest in the vehicle. It treated the Act as beneficial social legislation designed to protect third parties and to ensure they can obtain compensation irrespective of the driver's or owner's financial condition.
- The court relied on the Supreme Court's statement in New Asiatic Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pessumal Dhanamal Aswani to reinforce the interpretive approach that Chapter VIII must be construed to secure the object of third party protection.
- The insurer's separate contention — that the trolley was not separately registered and therefore no liability could be fixed — was rejected. The court reasoned that the trolley or trailer moves only with the help of the tractor; because the tractor was insured and the driver of the tractor was found negligent (driving at high speed), the insurer's liability could not be avoided on the basis that the trolley itself was not registered or separately insured. The court relied on Justice P.C. Jain's decision in New India Assurance Co. v. Kusum Jaluria to support this conclusion.
- Considering these principles, the court concluded that the insurer must be held liable along with the driver and the owner to pay the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
Holding and Implications
HOLDING: The appeals are allowed in part. The Tribunal's awards are maintained, and the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. is held liable, along with the driver (Fareed Mian) and the owner (Sajid Mian), to pay the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
Practical consequences explicitly stated in the opinion:
- If the sum of Rs. 15,000/- awarded under Section 92A has already been paid, that amount shall be adjusted against the final award.
- In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs in these appeals.
The opinion does not state that it establishes any new legal precedent; rather it applies existing statutory interpretation and precedents to the facts and directly affects the liability of the insurer and the parties to the specific awards in these consolidated appeals.
1. All the above appeals are disposed of by one single order as they arise out of the same accident.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on June 6, 1984, Dev Karan, Rang Lai and Ratan along with many other persons had gone, sitting in a trolley attached to tractor No. RJX 1313 for visiting temple of Ganeshji situated in Ranthambore Fort. While returning back, on the slope, trolley overturned on account of which Rang Lal, Dev Karan and Ratan died while many other persons received injuries. The tractor was being driven by Fareed Mian. Three claim petition Nos. 115 of 1984, 116 of 1984 and 26 of 1985 were filed by the claimants of the above-mentioned three deceased persons. All the above-mentioned claim petitions were consolidated by order dated January 20,1987 by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sawai Madhopur. It may be further mentioned that the original owner of the tractor was Narain who had sold the tractor for a sum of Rs. 26,000/- on 7th September, 1981 to Sajid Mian. The insurance policy for the period from August 25,1983 to August 24, 1984 was, however, issued in the name of Narain. Fareed Mian, who was the driver of the tractor, Sajid Mian, the owner of the tractor, Narain, the original owner of the tractor and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. as insurer were imp leaded as parties, to the above-mentioned claim petitions. The claimants also filed an application under Section 92A of the Motor Vehicles Act for awarding immediate compensation under no fault liability. Learned Tribunal by order dated August 29,1987 passed an order directing Sajid Mian to pay compensation of Rs. 15,000/- each in all the three claim petitions. Sajid Mian aggrieved against the order has filed the above-mentioned Misc. Appeal Nos. 323,324 and 325 of 1987 alleging that he was not liable to pay the above compensation awarded under Section 92-A of the Act.
3. The claim petitions were contested by Sajid Mian as well as by the original owner Narain and the insurance company. Learned Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs. 52,500/-to the claimants of deceased Dev Karan, an amount of Rs. 70,000/- to the claimants of deceased Rang Lal and Rs. 70,000/- to the claimants of deceased Ratan in claim petition Nos. 115 of 1984, 116 of 1984, and 26 of 1985 respectively. Learned Tribunal held that the non-petitioners Fareed Mian (driver) and Sajid Mian, non-petitioner No. 2, were alone responsible jointly and severally to pay the compensation. The claim petition against Narain and the insurance company has been dismissed. Sajid Mian aggrieved against the order of the Tribunal dated October 9, 1987 has filed the Misc. Appeal Nos. 320, 321 and 322 of 1987 in respect of the three claim petitions.
4. I have heard Mr. S.M. Ali for the appellant Sajid Mian, Mr. AK. Luhadiya for the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Mr. N.K, Jain for the claimant-respondents. The only controversy which has been raised in these appeals is whether the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation or not. In order to decide this controversy, the relevant facts are that the tractor No. RJX 1313 originally belonged to Narain. The insurance policy covering third party risk was made in favour of Narain. Narain sold the tractor for a sum of Rs. 26,000/- to Sajid Mian on September 7, 1981. In spite of the tractor having been sold on September 7, 1981, the policy used to be issued in the name of Narain though the premium was paid by Sajid Mian. The accident took place on June 6,1984 and it is an admitted fact that the tractor in question was insured for the period from August 25, 1983 to August 24, 1984, but the insurance policy stood in the name of Narain. Learned Tribunal in the above circumstances took the view that after the sale of the tractor in favour of Sajid Mian on September 7,1981, Narain and the insurance company were not liable to pay compensation. It may be mentioned at this stage that the only argument raised before me in these appeals was whether the insurance company can be held liable or not in the facts and circumstances held proved by the Tribunal as mentioned above.
5. It was contended by Mr. S.M. Ali appearing on behalf of the appellant Sajid Mian that admittedly, the premium had been paid and the 3rd party risk policy was valid from August 25,1983 to August 24,1984 covering the date of accident, namely, June 6,1984. It was contended that the tractor in question had been transferred by Narain in favour of Sajid Mian on September 7,1981 about three years prior to the date of accident. The fact of change of ownership of the vehicle was not mentioned in the record of insurance company in spite of the fact that the insurance premium was regularly paid by the appellant and such fact was also in the knowledge of the insurance company. It was further contended that Chapter VIII of the Motor Vehicles Act is a part of social legislation to compensate the loss suffered by the heirs of the deceased by any motor vehicle accident. There is a statutory duty on the owner of the vehicle to get the vehicle insured for third party risk. The premium having already been paid of the tractor in question, the insurance company was liable to make payment of the third parties irrespective of the fact as to who was the owner out of Narain and Sajid Mian. It was also submitted that as a matter of fact Sajid Mian was paying the premium of the vehicle in question for the insurance policy covering the third party risk, the appellant Sajid Mian was to be indemnified for any liability put on him on account of the accident having taken place by the tractor in question. The insurance company cannot raise the defence that the policy had lapsed because of the sale of the vehicle. The insurance company can only raise such defences which are permissible under Section 96(2) of the Act. The insurance company is not allowed to raise the defence under Section 96(2) of the Act that the policy had lapsed in view of transfer of vehicle. Reliance in support of the above contention is placed on Madineni Kondaiah v. Yaseen Fatima 1986 ACJ 1 (AP).
6. Mr. N.K. Jain appearing on behalf of the claimants supported the arguments raised by Mr. S.M. Ali.
7. On the other hand Mr. A.K. Luhadiya appearing on behalf of the insurance company submitted that when it was found proved that the tractor in question had been sold in favour of Sajid Mian on September 7, 1981 and the insurance policy having been issued in the name of Narain for the relevant period when the accident took place, the insurance company cannot be held liable. It was also contended that trolley in which the accident actually took place is itself a vehicle which ought to have been registered under the Motor Vehicles Act. It was submitted that in the present case, the accident took place on account of overturning of the trolley which carried nearly 40 persons and the same having not proved to have been registered under the Act, no liability can be fastened on the insurance company even if it may be considered for arguments sake that the tractor in question had been insured. It was contended that there was no privity of contract between Sajid Mian and the insurance company and the insurance company cannot be made liable for any liability fixed on Sajid Mian.
8. I have considered the arguments raised by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. It is well settled that the insurance company can only take such defences which are available to it under Section 96(2) and no more. The legislature in its wisdom has thought fit only to allow particular type of defences as enumerated under Sub-section (2) of Section 96 of the Act. The insurance company in these circumstances is not entitled to take the defence that it was not liable to indemnify the transferee as there was no subsisting contract between the insurance company and Sajid Mian, the transferee in the present case. So far as the third party risk is concerned, it has nothing to do with proprietary interest in the vehicle. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation made with a view to protect the rights of third parties who are involved in the accident. In New Asiatic Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pessumal Dhanamal Aswani 1958-65 ACJ 559 (SC), their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed as under:
(12) Chapter VIII of the Act, it appears from the heading, makes provision for insurance of the vehicle against third party risks, that is to say, its provisions ensure that third parties who suffer on account of the user of the motor vehicle would be able to get damages for injuries suffered and that their ability to get the damages will not be dependent on the financial condition of the driver of the vehicle whose user led to the causing of the injuries. The provisions have to be construed in such a manner as to ensure this object of the enactment.
9. I am fortified in the view taken by me in a decision of the Division Bench of this court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sheela Rani 1988 ACJ 206 (Rajasthan).
10. I see no force in the contention of Mr. Luhadiya that the trolley being not registered separately under the Act, no liability can be fixed on the insurance company. The trolley or trailer can only move with the help of the tractor. The tractor in question is already insured and the driver of the tractor in the present case is held to have driven the tractor in a high speed and negligently on account of which the trolley overturned and three persons died in the accident. Justice P.C. Jain also held in New India Assurance Co. v. Kusum Jaluria S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 342 of 1985, by judgment dated March 24, 1987 that even if the accident may be said to have been caused by a trolley fixed with the tractor it will not make any difference. One of the contentions raised in the above case was that the accident was in fact caused by the trolley which was fixed with the tractor and the trolley was not insured with the insurance company. The above contention was not accepted by P.C. Jain, J. and it was negatived as mentioned above.
11. In the result, all the appeals are allowed in part and maintaining the award given by the Tribunal it is further directed that apart from the driver Fareed and Sajid Mian, owner of the vehicle, the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. shall also be liable to pay the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. In case the amount of Rs. 15,000/- awarded under Section 92-A of the Act has been paid then the same would be adjusted in the amount to be given under the final award. In the facts and circumstances of the case parties shall bear their own costs, in these appeals.
Alert