IMPORTANT POINT
Where victim of accident was owner insured himself when vehicle went off the road and struck against a tree, in absence of additional premium in respect of entire risk of death or bodily injury of owner of vehicle, Insurance Company would not be liable for compensation.

Headnote:Motor Vehicles Act, 1988—Section 147(b)—Deceased was the owner of insured vehicle and vehicle dashed against a tree on road side—Appellant-insurer resisted claim application on plea that policy was a third party in nature—Claims Tribunal did not accept contention holding that additional premium for death of driver or conductor having been paid, liability was covered by Insurance Company—High Court dismissed appeal as not maintainable—Appeal—Question whether where deceased himself being negligent, claim petition u/s 166 of the Act would be maintainable? No—Additional premium was not paid in respect of entire risk of death or bodily injury of owner of vehicle.
       Held : The deceased was the owner of the vehicle. For the reasons stated in the claim petition or otherwise, he himself was to be blamed for the accident. The accident did not involve motor vehicle other than the one which he was driving, the question which arises for consideration is that the deceased himself being negligent, the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 would be maintainable. Liability of the insurer-Company is to the extent of indemnification of the insured against the respondent or a injured person, a third person or in respect of damages of property. Thus, if the insured cannot be fastened with any liability under the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act, the question of the insurer being liable to indemnify insured, therefore, does not arise.(Para 10)
       The additional premium was not paid in respect of the entire risk of death or bodily injury of the owner of the vehicle. If that be so, Section 147(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act which in no uncertain terms covers a risk of a third party only would be attracted in the present case. In that view of the matter, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. The appeal is allowed.(Paras 12 and 13)

JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, J.—Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 28.10.2003 passed by the Gauhati High Court in C.R.P.No. 69 of 2003 whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred by the appellant herein was dismissed.

3. The deceased was the owner of an insured vehicle bearing Registration No. TR 03-2304, a maruti van. While he was driving the said vehicle, allegedly, in order to save a goat which was running across the road, the steering of the vehicle failed and it dashed with a tree on the road side. He suffered injuries. He later on succumbed thereto.

4. On the aforementioned premise a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was filed.

5. The insurer resisted the claim petition when served with a notice, inter alia, contending as under :

“That as per Motor Vehicle Acts and Rules the owner is not entitled to get any compensation if he drives the vehicle and falls in an accident- As the Insurance Policy is a third party in nature - The contract between the insured and insurer is that if any accident occurred out of the use of Motor Vehicle then only third party is entitled to get compensation. The insurer and insured is the first and second party and other than the all are third party. But in this case as per the version of the petition the deceased was the owner of the vehicle and was driving the vehicle and he met with an accident. Though the deceased had valid driving licence still he is not the third party as per Rules and Acts. Hence the petitioners are not entitled to get any compensation.......”

6. The said contention of the appellant, however did not find favour with the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal which, inter alia, held that the vehicle being insured and an additional premium for the death of the driver or conductor having been paid, the liability was covered by the Insurance Policy.

7. In the appeal preferred by the appellant before the High Court, however, the contention of the respondents herein that in view of the decision of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Chandigarh Vs. Nicolletta Rohtagi & Ors. - (2002) 7 SCC 456, the appeal was not maintainable, was accepted.

8. Before us a short question has been raised by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant stating that in view of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the jurisdiction of the Tribunal was confined to a third party claim and, thus, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained.

9. Section 147(1)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, with which we are concerned, reads as under :

“147. Requirements of policies and limits of liability:

(1) In order to comply with the requirements of this Chapter, a policy of insurance must be a policy which-

(b)insures the person or classes of persons specified in the policy to the extent specified in sub-section (2)–

(i)against any liability which may be incurred by him in respect of the death of or bodily (injury to any person, including owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle) or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place;”

(ii)against the death of or bodily injury to any passenger of a public service vehicle caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place”

Provided that a policy shall not be required–

(i)to cover liability in respect of the death, arising out of and in the course of his employment, of the employee of a person insured by the policy or in respect of bodily injury sustained by such an employee arising out of and in the course of his employment other than a liability arising under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923) in respect of the death of, or bodily injury to, any such employee–

(a)engaged in driving the vehicle, or

(b)if it is a public service vehicle engaged as a conductor of the vehicle or in examining tickets on the vehicle, or

(c)if it is a goods carriage, being carried in the vehicle, or

(ii)to c

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2007 Supreme(SC) 57

IMPORTANT POINTWhere victim of accident was owner insured himself when vehicle went off the road and struck against a tree, in absence of additional premium in respect of entire risk of death or bodily injury of owner of vehicle, Insurance Company would not be liable for compensation.

Cases Referred (2)

IMPORTANT POINT
Where victim of accident was owner insured himself when vehicle went off the road and struck against a tree, in absence of additional premium in respect of entire risk of death or bodily injury of owner of vehicle, Insurance Company would not be liable for compensation.