Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Rajesh S.Patil, J.
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd - Appellant
Versus
Purnima Rajesh Parikh - Respondent
Cross Objection (ST) No. 23393 of 2013
Decided On : 04-05-2023
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS - Sec. 173, Sec. 161, Sec. 166, Sec. 304-A, Sec. 185 - The court analyzed the liability of the insurance company under the Motor Vehicles Act, particularly focusing on the provisions regarding compensation for accident victims. It interpreted the insurance policy's coverage, emphasizing that a comprehensive policy includes liability for occupants, including employees, unless explicitly excluded. The court also addressed the issue of negligence, concluding that the driver was at fault, and the insurance company failed to prove any breach of policy due to alleged drunken driving. The court's decision was influenced by precedents affirming that an employee in a vehicle is considered a third party under the insurance policy, thus entitled to compensation. The court ultimately upheld the claimants' right to compensation and interest as per the statutory provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Fact of the Case:
Rajesh Parikh, while traveling in a car driven by Respondent No.5, met with a fatal accident. The claimants, his legal heirs, filed for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, alleging negligence on the part of the driver. The insurance company contested the claim, citing policy breaches and arguing that the deceased was an employee, thus not covered under the policy.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the insurance company could not establish a breach of policy due to drunken driving, as no conclusive evidence was presented. It ruled that the deceased, although an employee, was covered under the comprehensive insurance policy as a third party. The court also determined that negligence on the part of the driver was established, leading to the accident.
Issues: 1. Whether the insurance company is liable to pay compensation despite claims of policy breach due to drunken driving. 2. Whether the deceased, being an employee, is covered under the insurance policy. 3. The extent of negligence attributable to the driver in causing the accident.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the insurance company is liable to compensate the claimants as the comprehensive policy covers occupants, including employees, unless explicitly stated otherwise. The court emphasized that the burden of proving negligence lies with the insurance company, which failed to demonstrate any breach of policy conditions.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the insurance company's appeal and partly allowed the claimants' cross-objections, awarding them additional compensation along with interest from the date of filing the claim petition.
JUDGMENT/ORDER
1. Heard Learned Counsels for the parties.
2. This First Appeal is filed by Insurance Company under Sec. 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act ("M.V. Act"), challenging the Judgment and Order dtd. 13/12/2020, passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Mumbai ( M.A.C.T.) in Application No.505 of 1993.
3. The First Appeal was admitted on 4/10/2012, and stay was granted subject to deposit of decretal amount. Thereafter, the original claimants who are Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 in the First Appeal, filed their Cross -Objections, for enhancement of compensation.
4. The original claimants/Respondent No.1 to 3 thereafter filed Civil Application No.4079 of 2013 for withdrawal of the entire deposited amount. By an Order dtd. 13/2/2014, passed in Civil Application No.4079 of 2013, the claimants were permitted to withdraw the entire amount deposited by the Insurance Company, in M.A.C.T. without giving any kind of security. The said Order dtd. 13/2/2014, was not challenged by the Insurance Company. FACTS:
5. (a) Rajesh Parikh (now deceased) was the husband of Respondent No.1 and father of Respondent Nos.2 and 3, who unfortunately met with an accident on 4/11/1992, in the wee hours at around 3:15 a.m. while he was travelling in the motor car bearing No.MMH 9713 Toyota Corona. The car was driven by Respondent No.5, who was Managing Director of Respondent No.4 Company. The deceased was working with Respondent No.4 Company as a Chief General Manager, having his office at Mahim West, Mumbai. Respondent No.4 Company is the owner of the subject Car and on the day of the accident, the car was insured with the Appellant Insurance Company.
(b) After the accident, Claim Application was filed by Respondent Nos.1 to 3 being the legal heirs of deceased on 23/2/1993 before the M.A.C.T. The local Police lodged FIR against Respondent No.5 under Sec. 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and Sec. 185 of M.V. Act. It was stated in the Claim petition that the car in which the deceased was travelling was driven in rash and negligent manner at the wee hours on 4/11/1992 by Respondent No.5. As a result, it went off the road at Bandra west and dashed against the road side tree, opposite to Evergreen C.H.S., and the accident took place due to which Rajesh Parikh, husband of Respondent No.1 sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. Whereas, Respondent No.4 sustained injuries. The deceased was taken to nearby hospital i.e. Bhabha Hospital where he was declared as brought dead.
(c) The Respondent No.1 to 3, claimed that the deceased was earning a salary of Rs.70,500.00 per month, hence they demanded compensation of Rs.48,45,000.00 for the death of Rajesh Parikh as loss of dependency before the M.A.C.T. It was also their case that deceased was not attending his official duty at the time of accident, as he along with Respondent No.5 at wee hours in the morning at 03:15 a.m. was returning from a birthday party of a common friend's daughter at Mahim, and subsequently the deceased and Respondent No.5 were about to go to Sheetal Hotel at Khar. And as the car proceeded by Water-field road, another vehicle came in from the opposite direction, description of which is not known, when Respondent No.5 who was driving the subject car was not able to control the car which resulted into an accident, due to negligence of Respondent No.5.
(d) Written statements were filed by the Insurance Company opposing the Claim Application. So also written statement was filed by Respondent Nos.4 and 5, who were the owner of the vehicle and the person driving the vehicle. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 in their written statement opposed the Claim Application.
(e) Evidence was lead from the claimant's side by Claimant No.1 by stepping into the witness box. Respondent No.5, Mr. Rajan Thomas who was the Managing Director of Respondent No.4 company also lead evidence. The Insurance company also lead their evidence by examining their witness Dr. Rautela, Deputy Manager. (f) After considering the evidence of
A comprehensive insurance policy covers liability for occupants of a vehicle, including employees, unless explicitly excluded, and the burden of proof for any policy breach lies with the insurer.
The court affirmed that the insurance company is liable for compensation when the driver, even if related to the owner, was covered under the policy, emphasizing the principle of just compensation.
The court ruled that contributory negligence cannot be inferred solely from a site plan when eyewitness testimony indicates no fault, and clarified compensation calculations regarding deductions and ....
Deduction can be ordered only where the tortfeasor satisfies the court that the amount has accrued to the claimants only on account of death of the deceased in a motor vehicle accident
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
