The court clarified the limits of liability of the insurer under a policy issued in compliance with Chapter XI of the Act, emphasizing that the risk to the person of the insured is not covered under a policy issued in terms of the Act, except for his employees.

( 1 ) THESE appeals are heard together, as they are preferred against the same award. The former is by the insurer and the latter by the claimants.

( 2 ) THE facts of the case are - the claimants are the mother and brother of the deceased victim of a motor acci dent. The deceased was riding a motor cycle registered in the name of his brother, when he was said to have been fatally knocked down by a lorry, that did not stop. In the claim for compensation brought against the insurer of the motor cycle, the insurer had contested the claim and disputed the liability, on the grounds that the risk of a rider of a motor cycle is not covered and that the owner and insurer of the offending lorry were not made parties. In spite of this defence, the claims Tribunal having found the insurer liable to pay the compensation, the insurer is in appeal.

( 3 ) ON the other hand, the claimants in their appeal are seeking enhancement of compensation.

( 4 ) THE appeal by the Insurer is considered first, as its very liability is in question.

( 5 ) THE counsel for the insurer would contend that notwithstanding that the claim petition was one filed under Section 163-A of the motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the insurer could not be held liable to pay compensation assessed in respect of the death of the rider of motor cycle, whole risk is not covered under the policy.

( 6 ) IT is contended that Section 147 of the motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter called the Act) does not require coverage to the life of the rider of the motor cycle nor did the policy issued provide for the same. Any claim, whether made under Section 140, 163-A or under 166 of the Act, is circumscribed by the prescription under Section 147 and the liability of the Insurer does not enlarge beyond the requirements of the same.

( 7 ) IT is contended that the younger brother of the insured who was using the insured vehicle for his own purpose does not become a third party. The offending vehicle was an unknown "runaway" lorry. The insurer of the motor cycle cannot therefore, be held liable to pay compensation.

( 8 ) THE counsel places reliance on the following authorities oriental Insurance Company Ltd, v. Meena variyal and Others, 2007 (2) TAC 417 : 2007 (3) AIR Kar R 437. In the said, case a company executive was provided with a car registered in the name of the company. The vehicle had met with an accident and the executive who was in the vehicle had died as a result of the accident. The widow and daughter of the victim made a claim for compensation under the Act, claiming the deceased was an occupant of the vehicle when it was being used for the purposes of the business of the insured and the accident had occurred on account of the rash and negligent act of the driver, in the car having dashed against a tree. In the claim petition, the alleged driver was not a party. The insured who was made a party did not appear, after service of summons. The insurer had contested the proceedings, alleging collusion. The insurer pointedly raised the objection that the FIR disclosed that the deceased himself was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident. The Tribunal held that the owner of the vehicle was liable to pay the compensation and absolved the Insurer, as it was found that the vehicle was being driven by the deceased himself, who was an employee of the insured. The policy did not cover the risk to such an employee. In an appeal before the High Court, it was held that the Insurer was liable, in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in National insurance Company Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, (2004) 3 SCC 297 : AIR 2004 SC 1531, while granting liberty to recover the amount from the insured. In the further appeal by the Insurer, the apex Court has held that the High Court was in error in applying the ratio in Swaran Singh's case to hold the Insurer liable. The deceased being an employee, (not covered by the workmen's Compensation Act, 1939,) of the insured was not to be compulsorily covere

Click Here to Read the rest of this document