Point of Law: Motor Accident - Statutory liability - Scope of S. 140 of M.V. Act and no fault liability of payment of compensation and extent of extending benefit under S. 140 of M.V. Act in respect of persons, who have not approached Apex Court and in said case also, claimants are not legal heirs of original owner.

JUDGMENT :

This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and award passed in M.V.C.No.230/2012 dated 06.12.2012 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) & MACT, at Srirangapatna questioning the liability fastened on the Insurance Company to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/-on the head of no fault liability.

2. The factual matrix of the case is that the claimants before the Tribunal have contended that the deceased Cheluvaraju met with an accident on 15.01.2012 at about 1.30 p.m. and due to the injuries, he succumbed to the same. Hence, the claim petition was filed before the Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the claim petition granting compensation of Rs.50,000/-on the head of no fault liability, as the deceased was the insured of the vehicle involved in the accident. Hence, the present appeal is filed contending that the Tribunal has committed an error in fastening the liability on the Insurance Company directing to pay the amount of Rs.50,000/-on the head of no fault liability.

3. The deceased Cheluvaraju being the owner of the insured vehicle, the claimants, who are the legal heirs of the deceased Cheluvaraju are not entitled for any compensation and also contended that the policy is an act policy and in view of the judgment reported in ACJ 2009 Page 1433 in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Sheela and Another, the Tribunal without considering all these aspects erred in fixing the liability on the appellant-Insurance Company without any basis. The Tribunal ought to have noticed that deceased himself is the owner of the vehicle in question and the respondents being the wife and children cannot assume the seat of third parties as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The appellant-Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation only for bodily injuries or death that may be caused to a third party alone. Hence, the liability fastened on the appellant-Insurance Company is incorrect and the same is liable to be set aside.

4. This Court has issued notice to the respondents and they did not choose to appear before the Court and hence, notice to the respondents is held sufficient.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company and also on perusal of the records, the points that would arise for consideration of this Court are:

(i) Whether the claimants are entitled for compensation under the Special Contract for personal accident claim benefit?

(ii) Whether the Tribunal has committed an error in awarding an amount of Rs.50,000/-under the head of no fault liability?

(iii) Whether the claimants have to approach the Insurance Company for personal accident claim or this Court can grant compensation under personal accident claim in view of Special Contract?

(iv) What order?

Point No.(i)

6. Having perused the records, it is the claim of the claimants before the Tribunal that they are the legal heirs of deceased Cheluvaraju and they have claimed compensation by filing the claim petition contending that, when they were proceeding in the vehicle, the dog suddenly came across the road, as a result, the driver of the car i.e.., the deceased Cheluvaraju, in order to avoid the accident, took the vehicle other side, at that time, he went and hit the pillar of the bridge. As a result, he has sustained grievous injuries and he was succumbed to the injuries. He was working in a Railway Workshop and was drawing a sum of Rs.40,000/-per month. Hence, the claim petition is filed claiming the compensation.

7. On perusal of the claim petition, no provision is mentioned in the claim petition whether the petition is under Section 166 or 163(A) of the MV Act. The appellant-Insurance Company took the defence in the written statement that the accident was on account of the negligence on the part of the deceased himself. The police also after investigation have filed the abated charge sheet against the deceased. It is also contended that the deceased was the insured and liability is subjected to the terms