Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : A.RAGHUVIR, A.SAMBASIVA RAO
Zakaria - Appellant
Versus
Naoshir Cama - Respondent
Decided On : 03-07-75
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - INSURANCE - LIABILITY OF INSURER - DEATH OF INSURED - LAPSE OF POLICY - TRANSFER OF VEHICLE - SUCCESSION - THIRD PARTY CLAIMS - QUANTUM OF DAMAGES.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased met with his death in a motor accident. His legal representatives filed a claim petition under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 claiming compensation. The 1st respondent was the person who was driving the car. The 2nd respondent was the Insurance Company with which the car was insured. The car originally belonged to one N. C. Cama who had died intestate leaving behind him several heirs. Along with 1st respondent, respondents 8 to 10 are those heirs.
Finding of the Court:
The Tribunal found that the petitioners are the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased and that the result of the criminal case acquitting the 1st respondent could not be ignored. However, assessing the evidence placed before it, it held that there was no conclusive proof that the 1st respondent had rashly and negligently driven the car at the time of the accident. On the question of the liability of the Insurance Company, the decision of the Tribunal is that the policy issued to N. C. Cama the original owner, did not enure to the benefits of the 1st respondent since the death of the insured put an end to the policy. The alternative contention of the 1st respondent that in any case by virtue of the separate policy, the Company was liable to pay, the decision is that he has to work out his remedies under that policy in a separate proceeding and cannot enforce it in this claim. In regard to the claim for scooter it is held that it is outside the purview of the Claims Tribunal.
Issues: 1. Whether the 1st respondent was rashly and negligently driving the car at the time of the accident? 2. Whether the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation to the petitioners?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the evidence on record is not sufficient to conclusively prove that the 1st respondent rashly and negligently drove the car at the time of the occurrence. The Court also held that the rash and negligent driving need not necessarily be on the part of the 1st respondent. It could have been quite possible for the drivers of the car as well as the scooter to swerve their vehicles in order to avoid further damage and for that reason the car might have scratched against the electric pole. 2. The Court held that the liability of the insured and consequently the insurer to pay compensation to a third party, if he dies or bodily injury to him and damage to his property is caused on account of the use of the insured vehicle in a public place, irrespective as to whether the death, injury or damage has been caused by rash and negligent driving. The Court further held that the liability of the insurer and consequently that of the insured does not cease to exist in the absence of proof of rash and negligent driving of the insured car.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the appeal and awarded a sum of Rs. 97,280.00 as compensation for the death of the deceased in the occurrence. Since the Court held that the insurance was in force the insurer viz., the 2nd respondent is liable to pay the amount. The appellants will get proportionate costs of the appeal from the 2nd respondent. The other respondents will bear their own costs.
( 1 ) QUESTIONS of substantial import relating to the claims arising our of Motor Accidents arise for consideration in this appeal.
( 2 ) THE appeal relates to a claim arising out of a motor accident which took place on 4/06/1967 on what is popularly known as Tank Bound Road which connects the twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad. One M. A. Khader (hereinafter called the deceased) met with his death in the accident. He was then driving a scooter which collided with a convertible standard Herald car bearing registration No. KLE 2860 which was being driven by the 1st respondent. The five legal representatives of the deceased who include his parents, his widow and his children, filed O. P. 176/67 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 claiming compensation in a sum of Rs. 4,53,222. 00. There are many respondents to the action, the 1st respondent being the person who was driving the car. The 2nd respondent is the Hindustan General Insurance Society Limited with which the car was insured. The car originally belonged to one N. C. Cama who had died intestate on 23/04/1967 leaving behind him several heirs. Along with 1st respondent, respondents 8 to 10 are those heirs.
( 3 ) WE will now notice the respective contentions of the parties who may be broadly analysed into three categories. The petitioners are one, respondents 1, 3 to 10 are another and the 2nd respondent viz. , the Insurance Company is the third. The petitioners allege that on 4-6-1967 at about 5. 15 P. M. the deceased was proceeding on his Vespa scooter along the Tank Bund road from Secunderabad side to Hyderabad. The 1st respondent was proceeding from the Hyderabad side to Secunderabad side in the motor car with six other persons sitting in it and himself driving it. He was driving the car in a rash and negligent manner as a result of which a collision between the car and the scooter took place near an electric pole No. T. S. 150/22. The deceased sustained multiple injuries on the head, chest, leg etc. , and died practically instantaneously before any medical aid could be rendered to him. His monthly income was between Rs. 1200. 00 to Rs. 1300. 00. If his earnings and his future prospects are considered, the loss of earning capacity for the next thirty years would amount to 4 and half lakh of rupees at the rate of Rs. 15,000. 00 per annum. A sum of Rs. 3,222 is claimed separately as damages for the destruction of the scooter.
( 4 ) RESPONDENT No. 1, with whom respondents 3 to 10 sail, states that the car belonged to his father N. C. Cama who had died intestate on 28-4-1967. The car was insured by the father with the 2nd respondent company under the policy dated 19-12-1966 for a period of one year. After the death of the owner, his heirs including the 1st respondent became entitled to the rights under the policy and so the Insurance Company is liable to pay whatever compensation that is decreed by the Court. He denies that he drove the car in a rash and negligent manner. He further disputes the claim as arbitrary, exorbitant and excessive. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the claim relating to the loss to the scooter. He was not responsible for the accident or the death of the deceased and that he is not in any way liable to pay any compensation.
( 5 ) THE Insurance Company admits the insurance of the car for one year commencing from 10-12-1966. According to it, however, the policy automatically lapsed with the death of the insured viz. N. C. Cama. Consequently, it is not liable to any action for damages by third parties for injuries caused by rash and negligent driving of the car on a date subsequent in the death of the insured. There is no cover in the policy by subsequent fresh insurance with the 2nd respondent covering the liability in favour of the 1st respondent and that unless and until the Company enters into a fresh agreement with the 1st respondent, its liability
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
