Back
2003 Supreme(Cal) 446
High Court Of Calcutta
SAMARESH BANERJEE, S. P. TALUKDAR
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD. - Appellant
Versus
TANUSHREE MUKHERJEE - Respondent
F. M. A. 459 Of 1999
Decided On : 08/29/2003
KAMAL KRISHNA DAS, KRISHANA BANIK
With the death of the insured, liability of the insurance company comes to an end.
Headnote:
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - SECTION 140 - INSURANCE POLICY - LIABILITY OF INSURANCE COMPANY - DEATH OF OWNER OF VEHICLE IN ACCIDENT - NO LIABILITY TO PAY COMPENSATION TO LEGAL HEIRS.
Fact of the Case:
Owner of a vehicle died in an accident involving the said vehicle. Legal heirs of the deceased owner filed an application under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act read with section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for compensation.
Finding of the Court:
With the death of the owner of the vehicle in the accident, there is no further liability to pay compensation by the owner and this brought the liability of the insurance company to an end. Claimants are the legal heirs of the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident. It is the settled principle of law that with the death of the insured, liability of the insurance company comes to an end.
Issues: Whether the insurance company is liable to pay compensation to the legal heirs of the owner of the vehicle who died in an accident involving the said vehicle.
Ratio Decidendi: The liability of the insurance company essentially depends upon the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. With the death of the owner of the vehicle in the accident, there is no further liability to pay compensation by the owner and this brought the liability of the insurance company to an end. Claimants are the legal heirs of the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident. It is the settled principle of law that with the death of the insured, liability of the insurance company comes to an end.
Final Decision: Appeal allowed. Judgment and order dated 26.8.1997 passed by the learned 3rd court of Additional District Judge-cum-M.A.C. Tribunal, Nadia Krishanagar in M.A.C. Case No. 413 of 1995 be set aside.
( 1 ) THE present appeal being No. 459 of 1999 is directed against the judgment/order dated 26. 8. 1997 passed by the learned 3rd Additional District Judge-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, nadia Krishanagar in M. A. C. Case No. 413 of 1995.
( 2 ) RESPONDENTS, namely, Tanushree mukherjee (minor) and Piyali Mukherjee, as claimants, filed an application under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act read with section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on account of death of Tarun Kumar mukherjee.
( 3 ) GRIEVANCES of the present respondents, as claimants, may briefly be stated as follows: On 7. 9. 1995 at about 9. 00 hrs. a vehicle bearing No. WB 11-6484 was rushing towards Calcutta via N. H. 34 at a high speed. At about 9 a. m. when it reached near Panchpota (Babla) of Santipur, Distt. Nadia, one of the tyres got punctured and the driver of the vehicle lost control and it dashed against a roadside tree. All the three occupants including the owner of the said vehicle were severely injured and the owner, Tarun Kumar Mukherjee, died on way to the hospital. Such accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the said vehicle. The claimants are the legal heirs of the deceased owner of the vehicle. An amount of Rs. 50,000 in a way of statutory compensation was sought for in the application under section 140 of the motor Vehicles Act.
( 4 ) THE said case was contested by the present appellant, United India Insurance co. Ltd. A written objection was filed wherein all the material allegations made in the claim application were denied.
( 5 ) THE learned Tribunal after taking into consideration all the relevant facts and circumstances by its judgment dated 26. 8. 1997 allowed the said claim application and passed an award of Rs. 50,000 with a direction upon the present appellant insurance company to satisfy the award within a month of the date of delivery of the said judgment.
( 6 ) BEING aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment and award, United india Insurance Co. Ltd. had preferred the instant appeal. It had been specifically stated that the learned Tribunal ought to have exonerated the insurance company from the liability altogether since the contract between the owner of the vehicle and the insurance company did not speak of any liability except the liability to indemnify the owner of the vehicle according to coverage.
( 7 ) AT the time of hearing of the appeal the only point raised before us was as to whether the insurance company could be under legal obligation to pay any amount whatsoever to the claimants who are the legal heirs of the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident.
( 8 ) LEARNED counsel, Mr. Kamal Krishna das, appearing for the appellant drew our attention to judgments of various High courts as well as of the Supreme Court which may be referred to as follows: (1) Oriental Fire and Genl. Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Shakuntala Devi, 1991 ACJ 177 (Allahabad); (2) United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Siddanna Nimbanna Jawali, 2001 ACJ 1774 (Karnataka); (3) National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sasilatha, 2000 ACJ 661 (Kerala); (4) United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Darshan Kaurf2001 ACJ 998 (Pandh); (5) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajendra Singh, 2000 ACJ 1039 (Karnataka); (6) United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Odeti Mallu Bai, 1995 ACJ 851 (AP); (7) Hemlata Sahu v. Ramadhar, 2000 acj 134 (MP); and (8) Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sunita Rathi, 1998 ACJ 121 (SC ).
( 9 ) RELYING upon the decisions in the cases as referred to above it was submitted by Mr. K. K. Das, the learned counsel for the appellant insurance company that the owner of the vehicle having died in the accident involving the said vehicle, question of any further liability could hardly arise and with the death of the owner, there could hardly be any occasion for the insurer to indemnify according to coverage.
( 10 ) IN response to the same, learned counsel Mr. Krishanu Banik, appearing for the respondents drew our attenti
