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

2020 Supreme(Bom) 1344

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT NAGPUR
S.M. MODAK, J.
Mangala & Others - Appellant
Versus
National Insurance Company Limited, (Ori. Respondent) Through its Manager - Respondent
First Appeal No. 378 of 2020
Decided On : 29-09-2020

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants :H.P. Lingayat, Advocate.
For the Respondent:B.P. Bhatt, Advocate.

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the insurance company is liable to reimburse for the loss caused to the insured under the personal accident coverage, and the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain such claims under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Headnote:

Insurance Liability - Personal Accident Cover - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 163-A - Section 166 - Section 147 - Section 165

Fact of the Case:

The case involves a dispute over the liability of an insurance company to pay compensation under the personal accident cover in an insurance policy. The deceased, who was the owner and driver 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.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the insurance company is liable to reimburse under the personal accident cover of the insured and that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has jurisdiction to award compensation under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Issues: The issues involved were the extent of liability of the insurance company under the personal accident cover, the jurisdiction of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to award compensation, and the interpretation of relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the insurance company is liable to reimburse for the loss caused to the insured under the personal accident coverage. It also determined that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain the claim under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the lower court, and directed the insurance company to pay Rs.2,00,000/- to the appellants as compensation for the death of the insured, along with 6% interest. The court also specified the distribution of the compensation among the appellants.

JUDGMENT :

1. 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.V. Act lays down req

              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
              logo-black

              An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

              Please visit our Training & Support
              Center or Contact Us for assistance

              qr

              Scan Me!

              India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

              For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

              whatsapp-icon Back to top