# 1 S.C.R. 1073 ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD v. VIMLA DEVI & ORS

- **Citation:** [2009] 1 S.C.R. 1073
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2009-02-09
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal Nos. 815-817 of 2009
- **Bench:** Dr. Arijit Pasa Yat, ASOK KUMAR • i' GANGUL Y
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/1-s-c-r-1073-oriental-insurance-co-ltd-v-vimla-devi-ors-25368
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988:
s. 166 - Compensation claimed by heirs of passengers c
- Tribunal and High Court held that though offending vehicle
was goods commercial vehicle, it was insured for goods as
well as for passengers - Plea of insurer that no premium was
received in respect of non fare paying passengers - Matter
-. remitted to Tribunal to consider original documents relating
D
to payment of premium.
The MACT and the High Court held that the offending
vehicle was the subject matter of insurance for goods as
well as for passengers, though it was a goods
E
commercial vehicle.
In appeals to this Court, appellant-insurer contended
that the original records produced by it clearly showed
;.,
that no premium was received in respect of any non fare
paying non employees and both the MACT and the High
F
Court erroneously held that the premium was paid for
passengers as admittedly the vehicle was a goods
commercial vehicle.
Partly allowing the appeals and remitting the matter
to MACT, the Court
G
-~
HELD: The MACT and the High Court appear to have
proceeded on erroneous premises that the premium was
also paid in respect of goods and also in respect of
passengers. MACT would consider the original
H
1073
1074
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2009] 1 S.C.R.
A documents relating to payment of premium. [Para 4]
--
(1075-F-G]

## Text

(2009] 1 S.C.R. 1073
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
A
v.
VIMLA DEVI & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 815-817 of 2009)
FEBRUARY 9, 2009
--.,-
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASA YAT AND ASOK KUMAR
• i'
GANGUL Y, JJ.]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988:
s. 166 - Compensation claimed by heirs of passengers c
- Tribunal and High Court held that though offending vehicle
was goods commercial vehicle, it was insured for goods as
well as for passengers - Plea of insurer that no premium was
received in respect of non fare paying passengers - Matter
-. remitted to Tribunal to consider original documents relating
D
to payment of premium.
The MACT and the High Court held that the offending
vehicle was the subject matter of insurance for goods as
well as for passengers, though it was a goods
E
commercial vehicle.
In appeals to this Court, appellant-insurer contended
that the original records produced by it clearly showed
;.,
that no premium was received in respect of any non fare
paying non employees and both the MACT and the High
F
Court erroneously held that the premium was paid for
passengers as admittedly the vehicle was a goods
commercial vehicle.
Partly allowing the appeals and remitting the matter
to MACT, the Court
G
-~
HELD: The MACT and the High Court appear to have
proceeded on erroneous premises that the premium was
also paid in respect of goods and also in respect of
passengers. MACT would consider the original
H
1073
1074
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2009] 1 S.C.R.
A documents relating to payment of premium. [Para 4]
--
(1075-F-G]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos.
815-817 of 2009.
8
From the final Judgment and Order dated 31.8.2004 of the
High Court of Uttaranchal at Nainital in A.O. Nos. 03 & 01 of
2004 and 462 of 2003.
c
Vishnu Mehra and B.K. Satija for the Appellant.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
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
0 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
E 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
F 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
G 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
H insurance for goods as well as for passengers, though it was
> t
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. VIMLA DEVI &
1075
ORS. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
a goods commercial vehicle. MACT did not accept the stand
A
of the appellant-Insurance company holding that no premium
was paid for any passenger. The High Court also accepted the
said view.
3. In support of the appeals, learned counsel for the
appellant submitted that the original records produced by the
B
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 c
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:
D
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 the matter to the
MACT to consider the original documents relating to payment
of premium which have been summarized in the paper book
E
F
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
G
~ decision. It shall permit the appellant to produce such material
or evidence which according to it has relevance.
5. The appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent.
D.G.
Appeal partly allowed.
H