Khersingh Vs. State Bank of India

.....be liable for any bodily injury or death of a third party in an accident unless the liability is fastened on the insurer under the provisions of section 147 of the act or under the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance. hence, the mere fact that a passenger is a third party would not fasten liability on the insurer unless such liability arises under section 147 of the act or under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. an employee is a third party inasmuch as he is not a party to the insurance policy. but merely because an employee is a third party, the insurance company would not be liable to compensate in case such employee suffers bodily injury or dies in an accident in which the motor vehicle is involved unless section 147 of the act fixes such liability on the insured or unless the terms and conditions of the contract of insurance fixes liability on the insurer. section 147 (1)(b) of the act provides that in order to comply with the requirements of chapter xi of the act, a policy of insurance must be a policy which insures the person or classes of persons specified in the policy to the extent specified in sub-section (2) against the liabilities mentioned in clauses (i) and (ii) thereunder. even if an employee is a passenger or a person travelling in a motor vehicle which is insured as per the requirements of sub-section (1) of section 147 of the act, the insurer will not be liable to cover any liability in respect of death or bodily injury of such employee unless such employee falls in one of the categories mentioned in sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c)of clause (i) of the proviso to sub-section (1)of section 147 of the act and further in cases where such employees fall under categories mentioned in sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c) of clause (i) of the proviso to sub-section (1`) of section 147 of the act, the insurer is liable only for the liability under the workmens compensation act, 1923. [national insurance co. ltd. v sarvanlal, 2004 (4)..........was received from the state bank of india has been paid back with interest. accordingly a verdict was sought in terms of order 36, rule 1 of code of civil procedure. the provisions of order 36, rule 1 reads as under:'power to state case for court's opinion - (1) parties claiming to be interested in the decision of any question of fact or law may enter into an agreement in writing stating such question in the form of a case for the opinion of the court, and providing that, upon the finding of the court with respect to such question : (a) a sum of money fixed by the parties or to be determined by the court shall be paid by one of the parties to the other of them; or (b) some property, movable or immovable, specified in the agreement, shall be delivered by one of the parties to the other of them; or (c) one or more of the parties shall do or refrain from doing, some other particular act specified in the agreement.(2) every case stated under this rule shall be divided into consecutively numbered paragraphs, and shall concisely state such facts and specify such documents as may be necessary to enable the court to decide the question raised thereby.'a bare perusal of the above order indicate that the court could be approached only if there is an agreement to refer the dispute to the court. there is no agreement between the petitioner and the state bank of india to get the matter referred to the court which rejected the prayer of the petitioner. as such, the order passed by the court below holding that the provisions of order 36, rule 1 of the code of civil procedure are not attracted, cannot be faulted with.2. if the petitioner wants to file any other suit, he will be at liberty to do so. it is only in that event i.e. if the petitioner files a suit then he would have to pay the court fee as is required to be paid, under the law.this petition is held to be without merit and is dismissed.