IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
A.V. Ravindra Babu, J.
The Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited - Appellant
Versus
V.Sampoornamma & Ors. - Respondents
M.A.C.M.A No. 450 of 2021
Decided On : 15-03-2024
Third Party - Motor Accident Compensation - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 163-A
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a claim for compensation for the death of an individual in a motor vehicle accident. The deceased was the only earning member of the claimants and died in an accident involving a motorcycle. The claimants sought compensation under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the deceased, who was driving the motorcycle at the time of the accident, could not be considered a third party under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The court held that the claimants were not entitled to claim compensation under Section 163-A of the Act. However, the court directed the insurance company to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000 as compensation to the claimants, in accordance with the terms of the insurance policy.
Issues: The main issue was whether the claimants were entitled to claim compensation under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the deceased, who was driving the motorcycle, could not be considered a third party under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The court also emphasized that the claimants could seek compensation in accordance with the terms of the insurance policy, which provided for a sum of Rs.1,00,000 as compensation to the owner/driver in case of death.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the award of the Tribunal. The court directed the insurance company to deposit a sum of Rs.1,00,000 within one month for the claimants, with interest, and allowed the claimants to apportion the same equally. No costs were awarded.
JUDGMENT
A.V. Ravindra Babu, J. - Challenge in this Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is to the Award, dated 16.12.2020, in M.V.O.P. No.227 of 2016 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-X Additional District Judge, Tirupati (for short, 'the Tribunal') whereunder the Tribunal, dealing with the claim of compensation for a sum of Rs.12,00,000/-, on account of the death of Varampati Suresh Kumar Reddy (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased'), in a motor vehicle accident, which was occurred on 12.10.2012, allowed the claim in part awarding a sum of Rs.7,18,500/- with joint and several liability against the first and second respondents and with a direction to the second respondent to deposit the aforesaid amount within 30 days from the date of Award and apportioned a sum of Rs.5,18,500/- in favour of the first claimant (mother) and Rs.2,00,000/- in favour of the second claimant (elder sister).
2. Appellant herein is no other than the Insurance Company, which was shown as second respondent in the aforesaid M.V.O.P. No.227 of 2016.
3. The parties to this Appeal will hereinafter be referred to as described before the Tribunal, for the sake of convenience.
4. The case of the claimants, in brief, according to the averments set out in the claim filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the MV Act') before the Tribunal, is that first petitioner/claimant is the mother and the second petitioner/claimant is the elder sister of the deceased. The husband of the second claimant deserted her as such she is living with the first petitioner and the deceased. The deceased was the only male child of first petitioner, who was well educated and studied up to B.Com. Deceased was a very bright student. The petitioners are having 7 cows, which used to yield 20 liters of milk per day and the deceased was doing milk business by collecting milk of 50 liters from the neighbourers in the village and was selling the same in Piler Town morning and evening and getting Rs.15,000/- per month.
(i) On 12.10.2012, the deceased went to Piler Town on his personal work on a new Bajaj Pulsar Motorcycle (un-registered). After completing his work, he was returning to his home at about 02:30 p.m. on the extreme left side of Piler - Kalikiri main road near Vepulabailu Electric Sub-station slowly and cautiously by observing the vehicles on road, by following due traffic rules and regulations. Then a batch of buffaloes suddenly came across the road on hearing the horns of tractor and tipper. The buffaloes ran in a zigzag manner and suddenly jumped over the motorcycle of the deceased. The deceased might have suddenly turned his motorcycle and unable to control, hit the electric pole as a result of which, he fell down on the road and sustained severe injuries to his head and other parts of the body. The first respondent, who is his father, on information took the injured initially to Government Hospital, Piler and on the advice of doctor, he was taken to SVIMS, Tirupati for better treatment. As doctors therein advised him to take the deceased to Chennai for better treatment, the deceased was taken to S.R.M.C Hospital, Chennai on 13.10.2012 and they spent more than Rs.30,000/-. The hospital authorities intimated that the treatment will be very expensive i.e., more than Rs.30,00,000/- but there is no guarantee for recovery of deceased. Hence, the deceased was brought back to SVIMS, Tirupati and was admitted as in-patient. While undergoing treatment on 15.10.2012, he was succumbed to the injuries at about 01:00 a.m. in SVIMS, Tirupati. The efforts made by the petitioners to save the life of deceased proved futile. The Assistant Professor, Forensic Department, S.V. Medical College, Tirupati conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued post-mortem report.
(ii) On a complaint given by first respondent, the Station House Officer, Piler Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.204 of 2012 for the offence
Amrit Lal Sood and others v. Kaushalya Devi Thapar and others
National Insurance Company Limited v. Ashalata Bhowmik and others
New India Assurance Company Limited v. Sadanand Mukhi and others
Ningamma v. United India Insurance Company Limited
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the deceased, who was driving the motorcycle, could not be considered a third party under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, and the cla....
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.
A borrower of a vehicle steps into the shoes of the owner, disqualifying their legal heirs from claiming compensation against the insurance company.
A borrower of a vehicle cannot claim compensation under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act as they step into the shoes of the owner and are not considered a third party.
A borrower of a vehicle is not considered a third party under the insurance policy, and the insurance company's liability is limited to the terms of the contract.
Legal heirs of the tort-feasor are not entitled to maintain a claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act against the insurer of the motorcycle.
The legal heirs of the deceased, as the tort-feasor, were not entitled to maintain the claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act against the appellant-Insurance Company.
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.