SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ASHOK BHUSHAN, M.R. SHAH, JJ.
Ramkhiladi & Anr. – Appellant
Versus
The United India Insurance Company & Anr. – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 9393 of 2019
Decided on : 07-01-2020
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 163A – Death in accident – Total sum of Rs.3,67,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum awarded by Tribunal – However, High Court allowed appeal and quashed Judgment and Award passed by Tribunal and consequently dismissed claim petition on the ground that even as per informant who lodged FIR, accident had occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by driver of motorcycle – In a claim under Section 163A of Act, there is no need for claimants to plead or establish negligence and/or that death in respect of which claim petition is sought to be established was due to wrongful act, neglect or default of owner of vehicle concerned – Claim petition under Section 163A of Act is based on principle of no-fault liability – However, at the same time, deceased has to be a third party and cannot maintain a claim under Section 163A of Act against owner/insurer of vehicle which is borrowed by him as he will be in shoes of owner and he cannot maintain claim under Section 163A of Act against owner and insurer of offending vehicle – Liability of insurance company would be as per terms and conditions of contract of insurance – In present case, as claim under Section 163A of Act was made only against owner and insurance company of vehicle which was being driven by deceased himself as borrower of vehicle from owner of vehicle and he would be in shoes of owner, High Court has rightly observed and held that such a claim was not maintainable and claimants ought to have joined and/or ought to have made claim under Section 163A of Act against driver, owner and/or insurance company of offending vehicle being a third party to offending vehicle – Deceased shall be entitled to a sum of Rs.1 lakh, even as per contract of insurance – Provisions of Section 163A of Act cannot be said to have any application with regard to an accident wherein owner of motor vehicle himself is involved – Original claimants shall be entitled to sum of Rs.1 lakh only with interest @ 7.5 per cent per annum from date of claim petition till realization. (Paras 5.4, 5.5, 5.6, 5.8, 5.9 and 6)
Facts of the case:
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with impugned Judgment and Order dated 10.05.2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur in SBCMA No. 2614 of 2009, by which High Court has allowed the said appeal preferred by the respondent-insurance company by quashing and setting aside Judgment and Award passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and consequently has dismissed the claim petition preferred by the original claimants, the original claimants have preferred present appeal.
Findings of Court:
As claim under Section 163A of the Act was made only against the owner and insurance company of the vehicle which was being driven by the deceased himself as borrower of the vehicle from the owner of the vehicle and he would be in the shoes of owner, High Court has rightly observed and held that such a claim was not maintainable and the claimants ought to have joined and/or ought to have made the claim under Section 163A of the Act against the driver, owner and/or insurance company of offending vehicle being a third party to said vehicle.
Result : Appeal Partly allowed.
JUDGMENT :
M. R. Shah, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned Judgment and Order dated 10.05.2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur in SBCMA No. 2614 of 2009, by which the High Court has allowed the said appeal preferred by the respondent-insurance company by quashing and setting aside the Judgment and Award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and consequently has dismissed the claim petition preferred by the original claimants, the original claimants have preferred the present appeal.
2. The facts leading to the present appeal in nutshell are as under:
2.1 That in a vehicular accident which occurred on 02.10.2006, one Chotelal alias Shivram died. The deceased was travelling on motorcycle bearing registration No. RJ 02 SA 7811. At this stage, it is required to be noted that, even as per the claimants, the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of another motorcycle bearing registration No. RJ 29 2M 9223. That the appellants herein filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Laxmangarh (Alwar), Rajasthan (hereinafter referred to as the learned Tribunal) under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). At this stage, it is required to be noted that the claim petition was preferred only against the owner of the motorcycle bearing registration No. RJ 02 SA 7811 and its insurance company. Neither the driver nor the owner or the insurance company of the vehicle bearing registration No. RJ 29 2M 9223 were joined as opponents in the claim petition. Therefore, as such, no claim petition was filed against the driver, owner and the insurance company of the vehicle involved in the accident i.e. motorcycle bearing registration No. RJ 29 2M 9223. That an objection was raised by the respondent-insurance company-insurer of motorcycle bearing registration No. RJ 02 SA 7811 that as according to the claimants and even so stated in the FIR, the driver of the motorcycle bearing registration No. RJ 29 2M 9223 was rash and negligent and the claimants have not filed the claim petition against the owner of the said vehicle, the claim petition is required to be dismissed against the insurance company of the motorcycle bearing registration No. RJ 02 SA 7811. The learned Tribunal framed the following issues:
1. Whether accident was caused on 02.10.2006 by driver Chhotelal alias Shivram driving Motorcycle RJ 02 SA 7811 vehicle in question in rash and negligent manner?
2. Whether the driver was driving the said vehicle being in the employment of vehicle owner opposite party No. 1 Bhagwan Sahay in his interest or with his permission/knowledge?
3. Consequent to occurring death of Chhotelal alias Shivram (driver) in the alleged accident, how much valid amount and in what manner, the applicants are entitled to get and from which opposite parties?
4. Whether the objections raised in the preliminary/specific statements are significant, if yes then its effect?
5. Relief?
2.2 On appreciation of evidence, the learned Tribunal answered Issue Nos. 1 and 2 in favour of the claimants and held that the death of the deceased Chotelal alias Shivram had occurred from the motorcycle involved in the accident and the said motorcycle was insured with the respondent-insurance company, the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation under Section 163A of the Act. Consequently, by the Judgment and Award dated 24.02.2009, the learned Tribunal partly allowed the said claim petition and awarded a total sum of Rs.3,67,000/as compensation along with the interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of the actual payment
2.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the Judgment and Award passed by the learned Tribunal holding the insurance company of the motorcycle bearing registration No. RJ 02 SA 7811 liable to pay the compensation, the respondent-insurance company-insurer of motorcycle bearing
Dhanraj v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (2004) 8 SCC 553 – Relied [Para 4.1]
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Jhuma Saha (2007) 9 SCC 263 – Relied [Para 5.9]
National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Laxmi Narain Dhut (2007) 3 SCC 700 – Relied [Para 5.9]
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Rajni Devi (2008) 5 SCC 736 – Relied [Para 4.2]
Premkumari v. Prahlad Dev (2008) 3 SCC 193 – Relied [Para 5.9]
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. V. Sadanand Mukhi (2009) 2 SCC 417 – Referred [Para 4.1]
Ningamma v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2009) 13 SCC 710 – Relied [Para 3.7]
Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan (2013) 9 SCC 65 – Referred [Para 3.2]
Jitender Trivedi v. Kasam Daud (2015) 4 SCC 237 – Referred [Para ]
Naveen Kumar v. Vijay Kumar (2018) 3 SCC 1 – Distinguished [Para 3.3]
National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Ashalata Bhowmik (2018) 9 SCC 801 – Relied [Para 4.3]
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.