REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7399 OF 2008

(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 1575 of 2007)

National Insurance Co. Ltd. …. Appellant

Versus

Rattani and others ….. Respondents

J U D G M E N T

S.B.SINHA, J.

1.Leave granted.

2.Appellant is before us aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the

judgment and order dated 31

st

July, 2006 whereby and whereunder an

appeal preferred by it was dismissed in limine by the High Court of Punjab

and Haryana at Chandigarh stating :-

“ For the reasons in paras 43 & 44 of the

award of the Tribunal, we find no ground to

interfere in this matter.

Dismissed.”

3.Ordinarily we would have remitted the matter back to the High Court

as the appeal of the appellant under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles

Act 1988 (for short ‘the Act) has not been considered on merit, but, keeping

in view the fact that the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 being mother, brothers and

sisters of the deceased having been awarded a total amount of compensation

of Rupees one lac forty thousand only, we chose to hear the parties on merit.

4.The accident took place on 15

th

May, 2002 when deceased Sunil

Kumar alongwith other injured persons, were travelling as members of a

marriage party in a Tata 407 vehicle bearing registration No. HR-39-9869.

Indisputably it was a goods vehicle. The first information report was lodged

in relation thereto wherein the driver of the vehicle was made an accused.

5.Separate claim petitions were filed by the heirs and legal

representatives of the deceased as well as by the injured before the Motor

Vehicles Claims Tribunal, Bhiwani.

2

In the claim petition in question, the relevant portion of the claim

form was filled up as under :-

“Was the person in respect of the whom

compensation is claimed, traveling in the motor

vehicle involved in the accident, if so, give the

name of station and start of journey and its

destination?

Yes, the deceased Sunil Kumar alongwith others

was traveling as a Barati in the Tata 407 being

driven by the respondent no.1 and they were

returning after attending the marriage function

from village Jharli to Kusumbi.”

Against the column ‘cause of accident with brief descriptions’ it was

stated:-

“Brief facts of the accident are that the deceased

Sunil Kumar alongwith others was traveling in the

capacity as Barati in Tata 407 in question and after

attending the marriage function were returning

from Jharli to village Kusumbhi in the Tata 407

which was being driven by the respondent no.1.

The vehicle was being driven rashly, negligently

and at a very high speed and inspite of warning to

the respondent no.1 to drive the vehicle slowly the

respondent no.1 continued driving rashly and

negligently and on 15.5.2002 at about 6.30 PM

3

when the vehicle after crossing Railway Phatak of

Dhalwas and were going towards Sehlanga due to

rash and negligent driving of respondent no. 1, the

respondent no.1 lost control on the vehicle

resulting to turn turtle and several persons suffered

grievous injuries and deceased Sunil and one

Photographer named Hazari died at the spot. On

the statement of Rameshwar son of Akhey Ram,

r/o. Mundhal Khurd, one of the eye witness and

traveling as Barati FIR No. 98 dated 16.5.2002

was lodged against the respondent No.1, which

contains the detailed manner of accident how it

took place and be read as part of this petition. The

respondents being the driver, owner and insurer,

are jointly and severally liable to pay

compensation to the petitioners.”

6.As a reference has been made to the first information report bearing

No. 98 dated 16

th

May, 2002, which was lodged against the driver, first

respondent in the claim petition, we may also notice the relevant portion of

the contents thereof from the award of the Tribunal.:-

“…He referred to the contents of FIR Ex. P2

wherein it is mentioned that all the members of

marriage party were the occupants of the four

wheeler and there was no mention that dowry

articles or some furniture etc. were loaded in the

vehicle.”

4

7.We are not oblivious of the fact that ordinarily an allegation made in

the first information would not be admissible in evidence per se but as the

allegation made in the first information report had been made a part of the

claim petition, there is no doubt whatsoever that the Tribunal and

consequently the appellate courts would be entitled to look into the same.

8.However, in their depositions, the claimants raised a new plea,

namely that the deceased and the other injured persons were travelling in the

said truck as representatives of the owner of the goods.

9.Mr. M.K. Dua, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant

would submit that in the aforementioned situation there is no escape from

the conclusion that the deceased and the injured were members of a

marriage party only and could not have travelled in a goods vehicle as

representatives of the owner of the goods.

10.Mr. Subramonium Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

owner of the vehicle, on the other hand, submitted that it was for the

insurance company to prove breach of conditions of the insurance policy

5

and the same having not been done, the judgment of the Tribunal cannot be

assailed.

In this connection our attention has been drawn to the following

findings of the Tribunal :-

“In the present case the evidence on record

indicates that deceased Sunil Kumar and other

injured were occupying the offending vehicle as

being representative of the owner of the goods.

No evidence was produced on behalf of the

Insurance Company to the effect that deceased and

injured were gratuitous passengers…….All the

injured petitioners were cross examined at length

but nothing useful to the case of Insurance

Company could be exacted from them. They

deposed that for carrying members of marriage

party there was one bus. Hence it is observed that

Insurance Company failed to prove that insured

had violated the terms and conditions of the

Insurance Policy. Deceased Sunil and injured

Maru and Rameshwar were not gratuitous

passengers in the offending vehicle being

representative of the owner of the goods.”

11.Ordinarily we would not have entered into the realm of appreciation

of evidence but as the High Court failed and/or neglected to do so, we have

no other option but to undertake the job of the High Court. The first

information report which was brought on record, clearly proceeded on the

6

basis that the deceased and the other injured persons were members of the

marriage party.

12.Even if the submission of Mr. Subramonium Prasad that in the truck

the goods offered by way of gift by the bride party were being transported is

correct, the deceased and others could not have become the representatives

of the owner of the goods. Even otherwise in view of the averments made

in the claim petition and the first information report the said contention

cannot be accepted.

Furthermore in their depositions the witnesses examined on behalf of

the claimants themselves stated that about 30 – 40 persons were travelling

in the tempo truck. All 30 – 40 persons by no stretch of imagination could

have been the representatives of the owners of goods, meaning thereby, the

articles of gift.

13.The question as to whether burden of proof has been discharged by a

party to the lis or not would depend upon the facts and circumstances of the

case. If the facts are admitted or, if otherwise, sufficient materials have

been brought on record so as to enable a court to arrive at a definite

7

conclusion, it is idle to contend that the party on whom the burden of proof

lay would still be liable to produce direct evidence to establish that the

deceased and the injured passengers were gratuitous passengers.

As indicated hereinbefore, the First Information Report as such may

or may not be taken into consideration for the purpose of arriving at a

finding in regard to the question raised by the appellant herein, but, when

the First Information Report itself has been made a part of the claim

petition, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the same can be looked

into for the aforementioned purpose.

14.An admission made in the pleadings, as is well-known, is admissible

in evidence proprio vigore. We, thus, are of the opinion that the Tribunal as

also the High Court committed a serious error in opining that the insurance

company was liable.

Reliance placed by the learned counsel on a decision of this Court in

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Baljit Kaur and Others [(2004) 2 SCC 1] is

misplaced. The question which arose for consideration therein was as to

whether the words “any person” shall include a gratuitous passenger despite

8

the amendment made in Section 147 of the Act by reason of the Motor

Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1994.

Following New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani [(2003) 2 SCC

223], it was categorically held:

“20. It is, therefore, manifest that in spite of the

amendment of 1994, the effect of the provision

contained in Section 147 with respect to persons

other than the owner of the goods or his

authorized representative remains the same.

Although the owner of the goods or his authorized

representative would now be covered by the policy

of insurance in respect of a goods vehicle, it was

not the intention of the legislature to provide for

the liability of the insurer with respect to

passengers, especially gratuitous passengers, who

were neither contemplated at the time the contract

of insurance was entered into, nor was any

premium paid to the extent of the benefit of

insurance to such category of people.”

In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Cholleti Bharatamma and Others

[(2008) 1 SCC 423], this Court categorically held:

“27. The learned counsel appearing for the

respondent, submitted that from the

aforementioned finding, it is evident that the

respondent was travelling as the owner of the

9

goods. We do not think that the said submission is

correct. PW 2, in his evidence, stated:

“I am doing tamarind business. I witnessed

the accident which took place about 3 years

back at about 6 a.m. at Borrampalem

junction beyond Talluru. At the time of the

accident I was in the crime lorry by the side

of the driver. Myself and 6 others were

carrying tamarind in that lorry belonging to

us. We boarded the lorry along with our

load of tamarind at Dharamavaram to go to

Rajanagaram. We were selling the tamarind

at Rajanagaram in retail by taking the

tamarind there in our lorry from our village

of Dharamavaram.”

28. The Tribunal, therefore, correctly recorded that

according to PW 2, he was travelling with his

goods as owner thereof and not the deceased.”

We, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, have no

hesitation to hold that the victims of the accidents were travelling in the

truck as gratuitous passengers and in that view of the matter, the appellant

herein was not liable to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants.

15.For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgment cannot be

sustained which is set aside in so far as the liability of the appellant herein is

10

concerned. The appeal is allowed. However, in the facts and circumstances

of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

………………………….J.

[S.B. Sinha]

..…………………………J.

[Cyriac Joseph]

New Delhi;

December 18, 2008

11