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.

JUDGMENT:

The present appeal is preferred by National Insurance Company Limited/appellant herein assailing the order, dated 28.12.2019, passed in M.V.O.P.No.508 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum - IV Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram, by which the Tribunal has awarded compensation for damage of vehicle for an amount of Rs.5,95,355/-.

2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:

The parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience.

(a) The claimant, owner of Maruti Swift VDI Car bearing No.AP35-P-3936, while proceeding from Visakhapatnam to Vizianagaram on 05.12.2025, was dashed from behind by a lorry bearing No.AP27-Y-7299, driven by respondent No.1/driver. On account of severity of the accident, the car being driven by the claimant was damaged. The said vehicle was stated to be purchased in the year, 2012, for an amount of Rs.6,89,475/-.

-

(b) The incident was reported to Police, who registered Crime No.197 of 2015 for offence under Sections 279 and 336 of INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860, against the driver of lorry i.e. respondent No.1 and later, on concluding the investigation, filed charge sheet against him and eventually as he pleaded guilty before the II Class Judicial Magistrate at Vizianagaram, a fine of Rs.1,200/- came to be imposed.

(c) The claimant, after evaluating the damage caused to the car by the Licensed Surveyor and also the Body Shop owned by Varun Motors, having estimated the loss suffered, ultimately, laid a claim for compensation of Rs.5,95,355/-. The claimant, in the process, has disposed the damaged vehicle for Rs.80,000/-, and ultimately, has claimed the compensation keeping the same in consideration. Thereafter, the claim was resisted by only respondent No.3 – insurer of the offending vehicle. The respondent Nos.1 & 2, who were driver and owner of the offending lorry, remained ex-parte.

(d) In the written statement filed by the insurer, it was specifically stated that it is not liable for any amount more than that stipulated under the policy towards third party damage, even if any amount is assessed beyond the restriction placed under the Statute, it is payable only by the owner of the offending vehicle alone. It is also stated that the amount of compensation claimed was clearly excessive, without considering the depreciation of the vehicle and disputed the surveyor’s report in valuing the loss.

-

(e) In order to prove the case of the claimant, he got examined as P.W.1, Manager of Body Shop of Varun Motors as P.W.2 and Licensed Surveyor as P.W.3 and got marked Exhibits A.1 to A.10 and Exhibit X.1. For respondents, none were examined, however, Ex.B.1, the policy between the insurer and offending vehicle, got marked.

(f) Based on the pleadings and evidence brought on record, the Tribunal has framed following issues:

1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Driver-R1 of Lorry bearing No.AP 27-Y-7299 causing damages to the Maruti Swift VDI Car bearing No.AP 35-P-3936 of the petitioner?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, what amount and which of the respondents are liable to pay the same?

(g) The claimant, besides his evidence as P.W.1, marked Exhibits A1 – F.I.R., A2 – Charge Sheet, A3 – Copy of Judgment, dated 12.01.2016, to support that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent act of the driver of the lorry. As no other evidence rebutting the evidence let in by the claimant was either adduced or relied on, the Tribunal has concluded that the accident has occurred on account of rash and negligent act of the driver of the lorry in s