Tourist Vehicles are not allowed to carry luggage on the Roof

An interesting judgment has been delivered by the Supreme Court recently in Sharma Transport v. State of Maharashtra through a special leave where six appeals and three writ peitions were jointly taken up by the Court. The main issue in the petition was whether transporters are allowed to put up the luggage on the roof of a tourist vehicle. Court decided the issue with reference to the appeal filed by Sharma Transport. Reference had been made to Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 ( hereinafter “Rules”) along with Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It was contended by the petitioner that they had a right to carry luggage of the passengers on the roof of the vehicle, and if not allowed to do so, their right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Indian Constitution would be violated. It was contended by the state that as it is clearly mentioned in t Rule 128 (9) of Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 that the transporters should provide space for the luggage of the passengers at the rear and the sides of the vehicle, and prohibits carrying the luggage on the roof of the vehicle. Petition filed by the appellant was rejected by the Bombay High Court primarily on the ground that:

“We are not accepting the submission of the petitioner that in the absence of a specific restriction in regard to having luggage holds/carrier on the roof of the vehicle the petitioners cannot be prevented from carrying the goods/luggage on the roof of the vehicle. On the contrary we are of the clear view that luggage has to be stored at the places specifically permitted by sub rule 9(i) viz., at the rear or at sides or both, but not the roof of the vehicle.”

It was contended by the learned counsel for the state that carrying luggage on the roof of a tourist vehicles increases the chances of accident, and which consequently lead to the danger which passengers have to bear. A specific limit on the luggage to be carried by the passengers has been provided under the Rules, and transporters are legally bound to follow such limit. Section 2 (43) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 defines the meaning of the expression `tourist vehicle' to mean a contract carriage, constructed or adapted and equipped and maintained in accordance with such specifications as may be prescribed in this behalf. Counsel for the appellant argued by relying on the Rule 93 of the Rules and thereby incorporating it with Rule 128 (9) which mentions the places where luggage are to be kept in. But, their contention was evidently rejected by the court principally on the ground that that rule specified “tractors/articulated vehicle” and it cannot in any manner be related to the tourist vehicle, which was in dispute in the present case. Rule 128(9) of the Rules states

(9) Luggage.--(i) Luggage holds shall be provided at the rear or at the sides, or both, of the tourist vehicle with sufficient space and size, and shall be rattle proof, dustproof and waterproof with safety arrangements;

Supreme Court dismissed the appeal while pronouncing that –

Rule 128 (9) is a special provision meant for laying down specifications for a tourist vehicle. The sub-Rule specifically provides that in a tourist vehicle, the permit holder should only provide luggage holds at the rear or at the sides or both, of the tourist vehicle with sufficient space and size. When the Rules specifically make a provision in regard to the place where luggage holds shall be provided by necessary implication, it goes to exclude all the other places of the tourist vehicle for being used as luggage holds. In our view, since the language of the Rule is clear and unambiguous, no other construction need be resorted to understand the plain language of the sub-Rule (a) of Rule 128 of the Rules. Rule 128 is a special provision for tourist vehicles which excludes General Rule 93 to the extent of conflict between the former and the later.

In addition to this, certain case laws had been discussed by the Court to make it clear and unambiguous that when the plain and simple reading of a statue is able to signify the intention of the legislature, then there is no need to make it more complicated by resorting to assumptions which are not required.

Case Laws on the Interpretation of Statues –

In this case – Sharma Transport v. State of Maharashtra

“The cardinal rule of interpretation is to allow the general words to take their natural wide meaning unless the language of the Statute gives a different indication of such meaning and is likely to lead to absurd result, in which case their meaning can be restricted by the application of this rule and they may be required to fall in line with the specific things designated by the preceding words. When the language used in the statute is clear and unambiguous, it is the duty of the court to give effect to it.”

Grasim Industries Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Bombay, (2002) 4 SCC 297

“10. No words or expressions used in any statute can be said to be redundant or superfluous. In matters of interpretation one should not concentrate too much on one word and pay too little attention to other words. No provision in the statute and no word in any section can be construed in isolation. Every provision and every word must be looked at generally and in the context in which it is used. It is said that every statute is an edict of the legislature. The elementary principle of interpreting any word while considering a statute is to gather the mens or sententia legis of the legislature. Where the words are clear and there is no obscurity, and there is no ambiguity and the intention of the legislature is clearly conveyed, there is no scope for the court to take upon itself the task of amending or alternating the statutory provisions. Wherever the language is clear the intention of the legislature is to be gathered from the language used. While doing so, what has been said in the statute as also what has not been said has to be noted. The construction which requires for its support addition or substitution of words or which results in rejection of words has to be avoided...”

Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd., (2003) 2 SCC 111

“24. True meaning of a provision of law has to be determined on the basis of what it provides by its clear language, with due regard to the scheme of law.

25. Scope of the legislation on the intention of the legislature cannot be enlarged when the language of the provision is plain and unambiguous. In other words statutory enactments must ordinarily be construed according to its plain meaning and no words shall be added, altered or modified unless it is plainly necessary to do so to prevent a provision from being unintelligible, absurd, unreasonable, unworkable or totally irreconcilable with the rest of the statute.”

Harshad S. Mehta v. State of Maharashtra,(2001) 8 SCC 257

“34. There is no doubt that if the words are plain and simple and call for only one construction, that construction is to be adopted whatever be its effect...”

Union of India v. Hansoli Devi, (2002) 7 SCC 273

“9...It is a cardinal principle of construction of a statute that when the language of the statute is plain and unambiguous, then the court must give effect to the words used in the statute and it would not be open to the courts to adopt a hypothetical construction on the ground that such construction is more consistent with the alleged object and policy of the Act...”

Patangrao Kadam v. Prithviraj Sayajirao Yadav Deshmukh,(2001) 3 SCC 594

“12. Thus when there is an ambiguity in terms of a provision, one must look at well-settled principles of construction but it is not open to first create an ambiguity which does not exist and then try to resolve the same by taking recourse to some general principle.”

Liability of an Insurance Company in Accident Claim

Claims arising out of accidents have become one of the most important issues pertaining to the litigation mechanism. Very often, notion of vicarious liability is accompanied by such claims, relationship between the driver and the owner of the disputed vehicle being the reason for the inclusion of such a liability. One such dispute has come to the light in Uttar Pradesh Road Transport Corporation v. Kusum & Ors Appeal No. 5901 of 2011 [Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.1969 of 2008], where a significant issue has been resolved by the Supreme Court pertaining to the claims arising out of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 w.r.t. the transfer of a vehicle, transfer of power to control its functioning to be more specific. When a vehicle is driven by a driver in line with the instructions specified by another person, it would be evident to note that responsibility would, in such a case, lies on such another person. In other terms employer of the driver or the person on whose instruction driver works.

In the instant case, appellant demanded compensation in lieu of the death of her husband along with her three children, who met with an accident caused by the bus working under Uttar Pradesh State Transportation Corporation. The main issue which should be looked into this case is the validity of the certificate of insurance executed between the owner and the insurance company, when the vehicle has been transferred to a third party. Whether the insurance, which was executed by the owner, would be transferred along with the transfer of the bus to the state transportation corporation. And, also there exist another important point which ought to be looked into i.e. the liability of the transportation corporation, as it was the corporation under whose control bus was functioning. Contentions as submitted by the counsel of the counsel on behalf of insurance company could not impress the bench, which subsequently decreed against them. It contended that insurance policy was not transferred when owner of the bus entered into a hire agreement with the corporation. When an agreement is formed between the parties, the terms mentioned therein receive utmost importance and this is what Supreme Court did in this case. It was specifically mentioned within the agreement that liability relating to insure would be of the owner, and not of the corporation, which ultimately absolved the corporation from its vicarious liability for the act of driver . When the nature of the liability has been clearly specified in the agreement, it will leave no room in concluding in relation to what has been provided in the agreement. The issue framed by the court was -

If insured vehicle is plying under an agreement of contract with the Corporation, on the route as per permit granted in favour of the Corporation, in case of an accident, whether the insurance company would be liable to pay the compensation or would it be the responsibility of the Corporation or the Owner?

In this relation it would be important to see the relevant section of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which deals with the transfer of the insurance of certificate of insurance. Section 157 of the act states that -

Where a person in whose favour the certificate of insurance has been issued in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter transfers to another person the ownership of the motor vehicle in respect of which such insurance was taken together with the policy of insurance relating thereto, the certificate of insurance and the policy described in the certificate shall be deemed to have been transferred in favour of the person to whom the motor vehicle is transferred with effect from the date of its transfer.

Section 196 of the Act makes insurance of the vehicle compulsory and Section 146 along with 147 cane be read in relation to the issue of statutory insurance , else the owner along with the driver can be exposed to criminal liability. It was held by the court that if owner had transferred the vehicle, he had transferred along with the certificate of insurance and nowhere is it mentioned in the act that insurer ought to be notified in case such a transfer takes place, which ultimately clear the doubt, and in such circumstances insurer would not be able to escape from its liability to pay the compensation. Court then referred to its judgment in United India Insurance Company Limited v. Santro Devi and Ors. (2009) 1 SCC 558, where it was opined by this court that

"The provisions of compulsory insurance have been framed to advance a social object. It is in a way part of the social justice doctrine. When a certificate of insurance is issued, in law, the insurance company is bound to reimburse the owner. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that a contract of insurance must fulfill the statutory requirements of formation of a valid contract but in case of a third- party risk, the question has to be considered from a different angle."

Court further, in this case, stated that -

"Section 146 provides for statutory insurance. An insurance is mandatorily required to be obtained by the person in charge of or in possession of the vehicle. There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act that unless the name(s) of the heirs of the owner of a vehicle is/are substituted on the certificate of insurance or in the certificate of registration in place of the original owner (since deceased), the motor vehicle cannot be allowed to be used in a public place. Thus, in a case where the owner of a motor vehicle has expired, although there does not exist any statutory interdict for the person in possession of the vehicle to ply the same on road; but there being a statutory injunction that the same cannot be plied unless a policy of insurance is obtained, we are of the opinion that the contract of insurance would be enforceable. It would be so in a case of this nature as for the purpose of renewal of insurance policy only the premium is to be paid. It is not in dispute that quantum of premium paid for renewal of the policy is in terms of the provisions of the Insurance Act, 193."

This case would make it easier to understand the liability of an insurance company, when the owner of a vehicle has transferred it to another part without letting insurance company know about the transaction. Even, defence ofPrivity of Contract between Insurance company and the owner cannot absolve the company from its liability because of a simple reason that it insures the vehicle and its liability is ultimately to the sufferers and not the owner. Moreover, the premium had been paid on a regular basis which makes the claim of the insurance company even weaker.

Click Here for the Full Judgment.