Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI, J.
ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., - Appellant
Versus
Paramata Raja Sekhar And 3 Others - Respondents
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No: 2232 Of 2015
Decided On : 15-12-2023
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT 1988 - Insurance Liability - 147(2)(b) - Summary: The court considered the liability of insurance companies under section 147(2)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, which limits the liability for damage to any property of a third party to Rs.6,000. The court held that the liability of the insurer was limited to Rs.6,000 under an Act only policy and set aside the order and decree of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal.
Fact of the Case:
The claimant sought compensation for damages to his car under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988. The insurer of the lorry and the insurer of the car challenged the maintainability of the claim petition and the liability for compensation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the liability of the insurance company was limited to Rs.6,000 under an Act only policy and that the claim petition for own damages (O.D.) in respect of the car was not maintainable under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988.
Issues: 1. Liability of Insurance Company under 147(2)(b) of M.V. Act, 1988. 2. Maintainability of claim petition for Own Damages (O.D.) under section 166 of M.V. Act, 1988. 3. Validity of the order and decree passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. 4. Relief.
Ratio Decidendi: The liability of the insurance company was limited to Rs.6,000 under an Act only policy. The claim petition for own damages (O.D.) in respect of the car was not maintainable under section 166 of M.V. Act, 1988. The court set aside the order and decree of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal.
Final Decision: The appeals were allowed, and the order and decree of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal were set aside. The respondent/claimant was not required to refund any amount already withdrawn, and the appellants were directed to deposit Rs.6,000 with interest if not already deposited.
COMMON JUDGMENT:
MACMA 1000/2012 is directed by the 3rd respondent/New India Assurance Company Limited, Rajahmundry, against the order dated 23.08.2010 passed in M.V.O.P.No.278/2008 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- VI Addl. District Judge (FTC), Rajahmundry, East Godavari District.
2. MACMA 2232/2015 is directed by the 4th respondent/ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Rajahmundry, against the order dated 23.08.2010 passed in M.V.O.P.No.278/2008 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- VI Addl. District Judge (FTC), Rajahmundry, East Godavari District.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are arrayed as parties before the tribunal.
4. The MVOP 278/2008 was filed U/s.166 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988, seeking compensation of Rs.3,03,000/- for the damage of the car of the claimant against the 1st respondent/driver of the lorry bearing No.AP 30T 6081, owner of the lorry/2nd respondent of the lorry bearing No.AP 30T 6081, 3rd respondent/New India Assurance Company Limited/insurer of the lorry bearing No.AP 30T 6081 i.e., appellant in MACMA 1000/2012 and 4th respondent/ appellant in MACMA 2232/2015/ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited/insurer of the car bearing No.AP 5V 6125 owned by the claimant.
5. The main contention of the appellant in MACMA 1000/2012, the insurer of the lorry bearing No.AP 30T 6081 is that Ex.B-1 insurance policy issued by the company is an Act policy; and therefore, U/s.147(2)(b) of M.V.Act 1988, its liability towards damage of property of a third party is confined to Rs.6,000/- only; in that view, the impugned order and decree of the learned Tribunal fastening liability on the appellant/Insurance Company to pay 50% of the compensation amount i.e., Rs.2,03,000/- is not valid in law.
6. The main contention of the appellant/ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited is that the claim petition is filed U/s.166 of M.V.Act, 1988 for own damages (O.D.) for the car; and therefore, it is not maintainable in view of section 165(1) of M.V.Act, 1988 which permit claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving the death of, or bodily injury, persons arising out of use of motor vehicles, or damages to any property of a third party so arising, or both but the learned Tribunal awarded compensation for own damages (O.D.) against the insurer, and therefore, the order of the learned Tribunal is not valid in law.
7. The case of the claimant is that he is owner of the car bearing No.AP 5V 6125 and it was insured with the 4th respondent/ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, and while so, on 09.11.2007 at about 07.45 a.m. the deceased Pamu Rajesh and others were travelling in the car from Visakhapatnam to Nidadavolu and the car reached a place near coco gardens of one Palacherla Venkata Rao of Bendapudi Village; the offending vehicle lorry bearing No.AP 30T 6081 coming from Vemagiri village side proceeding towards P.E.Chinnayapalem Centre; came on wrong route and the driver of the vehicle (1st respondent) drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the car; as a result, the car damaged and the driver of the car and four others travelling in the car died on the spot; Police registered a case, investigated the same and laid police report (charge sheet); Hence, filed petition U/s.166 of M.V.Act, 1988 claiming compensation for damages to the car against the driver of the lorry (1st respondent), owner of the lorry (2nd respondent), insurer of the lorry (3rd respondent), and insurer of the car (4th respondent).
8. The 4th respondent i.e., insurer of the car filed counter stating that the petition is not maintainable under M.V.Act.
9. The learned Tribunal considering the evidence placed before it, found that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent of driver (1st respondent) of the lorry.
10. When coming to the liability to pay compensation for damages to the car, the learned Tribunal held that the claimant is entitled to Rs.2,03,000/- towards dama
The liability of the insurance company under section 147(2)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 is limited to Rs.6,000 under an Act only policy.
Claims for own damages are not maintainable under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; liability of insurers for third-party property damage is limited to Rs.6,000/- under Act only policies.
The insurer's liability for third-party property damage is limited to Rs.6,000 under Section 147(2)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
The onus to prove breach of policy conditions is on the insurer, and the scope of coverage under the insurance policy for personal accidental risk is determined by the terms of the contract of insura....
A claimant must be a third party to maintain a claim under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act; a driver cannot claim compensation for injuries sustained while driving their own vehicle.
Insurer's liability for third-party property damage is capped at Rs.6,000 under Section 147(2)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Point of law: liability under Section 163A of the Act is on the owner of the vehicle as a person cannot be both, a claimant as also a recipient and, therefore, the heirs of the owner could not have m....
The Claims Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to entertain claims by vehicle owners under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act for personal accident coverage, as they do not qualify as third parties.
Claims under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act are maintainable for fatalities involving occupants of the insured vehicle, allowing strict statutory liability without proving negligence.
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
