SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2014 Supreme(Bom) 2172

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT NAGPUR BENCH
R.K. Deshpande, J.
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. – Appellant
Vs.
Pushpa – Respondent
First Appeal No. 499 of 2013
Decided On : 08.10.2014

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants :A.R. Godbole, Advocate
For the Respondents:S.C. Bhalerao, Advocate

The main legal point established is that the insurance policy covers the risk of the passengers in the vehicle, and the registered owner is liable to pay the compensation, making the insurance company liable to indemnify the risk.

Headnote:

Motor Vehicles Act - Insurance Policy - Sections 166, 2(30), 29A, 31, 94, 95 - The court upheld the finding that the risk of the passenger in the vehicle was covered by the insurance policy. The registered owner of the vehicle was held liable to pay the compensation, and the insurance company was liable to indemnify the risk.

Fact of the Case:

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal passed an award holding the driver and the registered owner of the vehicle liable to pay compensation for an accident resulting in the death of an occupant. The Insurance Company challenged the award, arguing that the insurance policy did not cover the risk of the passengers and that the registered owner was not liable to pay compensation.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the insurance policy covered the risk of the passengers and upheld the finding that the registered owner was liable to pay the compensation, making the Insurance Company liable to indemnify the risk.

Issues: The issues were whether the insurance policy covered the risk of the occupant and whether the registered owner was vicariously liable to pay the compensation.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the Motor Vehicles Act and previous court decisions to establish that the insurance policy covered the risk of the passengers and that the registered owner was liable to pay the compensation.

Final Decision: The first appeal was dismissed, upholding the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

JUDGMENT :

R.K. Deshpande, J.

1. In Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 138 of 2006, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Yavatmal, has passed an award under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on 30-3-2011 holding the driver and the registered owner of the vehicle Maroti Van No. MH-28/C-1464, along with the appellant-The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation of Rs. 16,32,408/- inclusive of no-fault liability and interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition, i.e. 5-6-2006, till its realization. It is the Insurance Company, which is before this Court challenging the award passed by the Tribunal.

2. The incident in question occurred on 17-3-2006 near Mangrul Shiwar on Pandharkawada-Wani Road at 12.15 p.m. The vehicle in question, i.e. Maruti Van No. MH-28/C-1464, dashed a horse, which was crossing the road; as a result of which, the vehicle turned turtle. The deceased Nanaji Punaji Uike was the occupant in the vehicle and died on the spot as a result of severe injuries. The Tribunal has recorded the finding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent No. 1. The defences raised by the Insurance Company that the risk of the deceased, who was the occupant of the vehicle, was not covered by the insurance policy; that the driver of the vehicle was not holding a valid and effective licence at the time of accident; that the vehicle was being driven by illegally carrying the fare-paying passengers in breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, are rejected. Another defence raised was that the respondent No. 8 Murlidhar Madhaorao Kolhe was the registered owner of the vehicle and the contract of insurance was with him. He had sold the vehicle on 30-1-2006, i.e. prior to the accident to the respondent No. 7 Amin Mehandibhai Lakhani, and hence he cannot be held liable to pay the compensation and consequently, the appellant-Insurance Company is not liable to reimburse the compensation. This defence is also rejected.

3. The only points urged by Shri Godbole, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company, are that the insurance policy in question did not cover the risk of the passengers in the vehicle. The vehicle in question was purchased by the respondent No. 7 Amin Mehandibhai Lakhani on 30-1-2006, though the registration of the vehicle and the insurance were in the name of the original owner, the respondent No. 8 Murlidhar Madhaorao Kolhe. On the date of the accident, i.e. on 17-3-2006, the respondent No. 7 Amin Lakhani was the owner of the vehicle. He further submits that unless the policy was assigned or transferred in the name of the respondent No. 7 Amin Lakhani, the appellant-Insurance Company was not liable to indemnify the owner. Hence, the points for determination in this appeal is as under :

(i) Whether the risk of the occupant of the vehicle in question was covered by the insurance policy? and

(ii) Whether the respondent No. 8 Murlidhar Madhaorao Kolhe, who was the registered owner of the vehicle in question, was vicariously liable to pay the compensation and consequently the appellant-Insurance Company was liable to indemnify the risk?

4. The Tribunal has recorded the finding that the vehicle in question was insured with the appellant-Insurance Company and the risk of the passenger in the vehicle was also covered by the policy. I have gone through the insurance policy, which was valid for the period from 10-10-2005 to 9-10-2006, covering the date of the accident, i.e. 17-3-2006. It is a package policy in respect of a private car. The sitting capacity of the vehicle is shown to be eight. The schedule of premium in the policy is reproduced below :

Insured Declared Value in Rupees

Of the Vehicle

Side Car/ trailer

Accessories Non-Electrical/ CNG/  LPG

Accessories Electri
























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top