In claims under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, insurers cannot use negligence of the claimant as a defense, adhering strictly to no-fault liability principles.

JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal arising out of common judgment and award dated 12-04-2014 passed in MVC No.161 of 2011 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Channagiri, Davanagere District, on the ground of liability.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the claim petition before the Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case of the claimant and the Insurance Company are as under:

On 29-6-2011 at 7:30 p.m., deceased K.H. Haleshappa was proceeding on a Bajaj Discovery Bike bearing Registration No.KA-17 EE-1064 from Channagiri to his native place Kempaiyana Thokkallu and when he reached near Dondraghatta Village on NH-13, due to skid, he lost control over the vehicle, slipped from bike, fell down and sustained grievous injuries, he was taken to Manipal Hospital for treatment, however, he succumbed to the injuries on 30.06.2011. Thereafter, a complaint was registered in crime No.145 of 2011 which led to investigation and charge sheet.

4. It was contended by the claimant before the Tribunal that Haleshappa was earning a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- per annum, hence, the claimant had filed petition under Section 163(A) of MV Act. The appellant-New India Assurance Company Limited disputed the liability to pay the compensation in view of Section 147 of the MV Act.

5. The Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, granted a compensation of Rs.3,02,833/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of its realisation and directed the appellant-Insurance Company to pay compensation to the claimant.

6. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the insurer of the vehicle filed this appeal on the ground of liability.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the Insurance Company as well as the learned counsel for the claimant and perused the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.

8. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company Sri A.N. Krishna Swamy, contended that the Tribunal was required to have noticed that claim petition under Section 163(A) of MV Act was not maintainable, in view of the fact that the annual income of deceased Haleshappa was shown as Rs.5,00,000/-. The Tribunal was required to have noticed that risk of the insured is to be covered and in fact, it was not covered under the Insurance Policy, thus, claim petition under Section 163(A) of MV Act was not maintainable. The Tribunal without looking into the legal aspect and the spirit of Section 147 of MV Act entertained a claim petition filed by the claimant/respondent. Further, the Insurance Policy is required to insured the person or classes of persons specified in the policy to an extent specified in Sub Section (2) of Section 147 of the Act, against any liability which may be incurred by him in respect of death or bodily injury to any person. Hence, no liability was incurred by the insured. Therefore, there exists no requirement of insurance policy to cover any risk. The Tribunal has passed impugned award ignoring the ratio laid down in the case of Ningamma and another Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited , AIR 2009 SC 3056 , which would clarify this legal aspect succinctly. The learned counsel in support of his oral submissions relied on the following decisions:

1. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sadanand Mukhi & Others, AIR 2009 SC 1788

2. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Me