IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT NAGPUR BENCH
S.M. Modak, J.
Mangala - Appellant
Versus
National Insurance Company Limited - Respondent
First Appeal No. 378 of 2020
Decided On : 29-09-2020
Insurance Liability - Personal Accident Cover - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 163-A - Section 147 - Section 166 - Section 165
Fact of the Case:
The deceased, who was the owner and insured of a Jeep, met with an accident and the legal representatives claimed compensation from the insurance company under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The insurance company denied liability, arguing that the deceased was not a third party and the claim petition was not maintainable under Section 163-A.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the insurance company was liable to reimburse under the personal accident cover, and the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had jurisdiction to award compensation under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The court held that the claimants were entitled to receive compensation from the insurance company.
Issues: The issues involved were the liability of the insurance company under the personal accident cover and the jurisdiction of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to award compensation under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, particularly Sections 163-A, 147, 166, and 165, to establish the liability of the insurance company under the personal accident cover and the jurisdiction of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to award compensation.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the judgment of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was set aside, and the insurance company was directed to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000 along with interest to the claimants.
JUDGMENT
S.M. Modak, J. - The issue involved in this appeal is about liability of insurance company to pay as per clause of 'personal accident cover' in the insurance policy. The issue is about extent of liability of insurance company when the insured/owner of the Jeep was himself the driver-cum-deceased and when no other vehicle is involved. The issue is whether the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short "M.A.C.T") has got jurisdiction to decide such claim petition.
2. The learned Member of M.A.C.T. negatived the grievances of the claimants who are legal representatives of the deceased/insured. The legal representatives of the deceased - Vijay Annaji Khandar claimed compensation from the respondent - Insurance Company from the M.A.C.T., Nagpur by invoking the provisions of Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short "M.V. Act").
3. Existence of valid insurance policy was not in dispute. Deceased - Vijay Khandar was the owner of the Jeep and a policy holder. On the material date i.e. 16/10/2004 at 17:30, he was driving the Jeep on Saoner, Nagpur Road. The deceased dashed his Jeep to a tree while avoiding a head on collision with a Tata Sumo. The Sumo was coming from opposite direction and the driver take the Sumo on right side. If the deceased could not have taken right turn, further vehicular accident might have happened. Deceased succumbed to the injuries.
4. The petition was contested by the Insurance Company - respondent. Deceased himself was the owner/insured. The Company denied their liability. The policy does not cover loss occasioned to the insured. Because he is not the third party. There is also emphasis on withdrawal of earlier claim petition filed under Section 166 of M.V. Act and non-maintainability of fresh petition under Section 163-A of M.V. Act. Both have adduced oral and documentary evidence.
5. It is true that issue of negligence is not relevant in an inquiry in a claim petition under Section 163-A of M.V. Act. Trial Court upheld the objection taken on behalf of the insurance company. Trial Court held:
"the owner/insured cannot be said to be a third party and hence exonerated the company".
It is the correctness of this judgment dated 6th February, 2020 passed in M.A.C.P. No.6 of 2015 is challenged before this Court by the original claimants.
6. Learned Advocate Shri Lingayat and learned Advocate Shri Bhatt argued on behalf of original complainant/appellant and respondent/Company respectively. Both relied upon various judgments. Amongst them, there is unanimity that deceased/owner/insured is not a third party falling under the provisions of Section 147 of M.V. Act. So, the scope of appeal is narrowed down. The issue is restricted--
1) whether Insurance Company is liable to reimburse under the caption personal accident of insured?
2) whether the M.A.C.T can award compensation?
7. Both the learned Advocates have relied upon various judgments. One can claim compensation under Section 166 or under Section 163-A of M.V. Act. There can be compensation for the loss caused on account of death or permanent injury. There can be compensation for damage caused to the property. There can be a claim for compensation on account of both the heads. An accident may involve only one vehicle or it may involve more than one vehicle.
8. You may claim compensation from the registered owner only (if vehicle is not insured) or from registered owner and the insurance company. In an accident, there may be loss/damage to the occupants of the vehicle/to the vehicle or there may be loss to persons/property outside the vehicle. Law mandates the owner to obtain insurance policy. It is called as Act Policy. It is a biparty agreement between owner/insured and the company/insurer. So, the insurance company indemnifies the insured to repay if any loss is caused to a third party due to act of insured. Section 146 of M.V. Act mandates the owner to obtain insurance policy before motor vehicle is put to use. Whereas Section 147 of M.
Chairman, Thiruvalluvar Transport Corporation vs. The Consumer Protection Council
National Insurance Company Limited vs. Ashalata Bhowmik and Ors.
National Insurance Company Limited vs. Swaran Singh
National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Laxmi Narain Dhut
Ningamma and Anr. vs. United India Insurance Company Limited
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.