Devkaran Mevara Vs. State of M.P. and anr.

.....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).....ordermaithli sharan, j.1. the facts of the case are thus : a criminal case no. 133/99 under sections 304a, 279, 337 and 338 of the indian penal code, against the accused santosh prajapati and others, was pending in the trial court viz., judicial magistrate, first class, kolaras, district-shivpuri. the petitioner who claims to be the owner of the truck no. mp-04-a/7279 filed an application in the trial court under section 451 of the code of criminal procedure for claiming custody of the above mentioned vehicle. the learned trial court allowed the application filed by him and ordered for the release of the said vehicle conditionally on producing bond and solvent security of rs. 3,00,000/- alongwith bank guarantee of rs. 3,00,000/-. the petitioner did not produce the solvent security and the bank guarantee.2. however, afterwards the accused persons, santosh prajapati and others, entered into a compromise with the injured/complainant and filed an application before the learned trial court under section 320(2) & (4) of the code of criminal procedure. the learned trial magistrate granted permission to enter into compromise. the injured persons had also mentioned in their application that they had received compensation of rs. 45,000/- from the accused persons. the case for the offences under sections 297 and 304a of the indian penal code remained pending. at this juncture it is worthwhile to note that the petitioner-devkaran mevara - who claims to be the owner of the above mentioned vehicle, was not a party at all in that compromise. he afterwards filed an application that since no compensation remained to be ordered to be paid to the injured persons hence in the light of the compromise entered into between the parties, the conditional order passed by the court below should be amended and the conditions in regard to the bank guarantee etc., should be removed. the learned magistrate rejected that application.3. now, the petitioner, aggrieved by the impugned order dated.....