Back
2003 Supreme(Cal) 445
High Court Of Calcutta
SAMARESH BANERJEE, S. P. TALUKDAR
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD. - Appellant
Versus
ANANDA MOYEE DIKPATI - Respondent
F. M. A. 11 Of 1999
Decided On : 08/29/2003
KAMAL KRISHNA DAS, KRISHANA BANIK, RAJESH SINGH
The liability of an insurance company under a motor vehicle insurance policy is to indemnify the insured against third-party risks, not to pay compensation for bodily injuries or death of the insured.
Headnote:
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - SECTION 147 - INSURANCE POLICY - LIABILITY OF INSURANCE COMPANY - OWNER-DRIVER INSURANCE - COMPENSATION - INTERPRETATION OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF INSURANCE POLICY - PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION TO LEGAL HEIRS OF DECEASED INSURED OWNER-DRIVER.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased owner-driver of a scooter met with an accident involving his scooter and a bus, resulting in his death. The insurance companies of both vehicles were directed to pay compensation to the deceased's family members by the MACT. The insurance company of the scooter appealed, arguing that it was not liable to pay compensation since the owner-driver died in the accident and there was no liability on the part of the insured.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the insurance company of the scooter was not liable to pay compensation to the deceased's family members. The court interpreted the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and found that the liability of the insurance company was to indemnify the insured, not to pay compensation for bodily injuries or death of the insured. The court also considered the fact that the owner-driver was equally responsible for the accident, which led to his death.
Issues: Whether the insurance company of the scooter was liable to pay compensation to the deceased's family members.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on various precedents and legal principles to arrive at its decision. It held that the liability of the insurance company arises only when the liability of the insured has been upheld for the purpose of indemnifying the insured under the contract of insurance. In the present case, since the insured died in the accident, there was no liability on the part of the insured, and therefore, the insurance company was not liable to pay compensation.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal and modified the judgment and award passed by the MACT. It held that the insurance company of the scooter was not liable to pay any further compensation. The court directed the insurance company of the offending bus to pay the remaining compensation amount to the claimants within four weeks.
( 1 ) THE present appealis directed against the judgment and award passed on 23. 6. 1998 by learned Special court-cum-M. A. C. Tribunal, Burdwan, in m. A. C. C. No. 24/205 of 1998. 827
( 2 ) THE relevant facts of the petitioners case may briefly be stated as follows: one Satyaprasanna Dikpati, employee of Burdwan University, since deceased, while returning home on his scooter along g. T. Road on 1. 5. 1996 was knocked down by a bus No. WMH 59 at about 9 a. m. at badamtala. As a result, he suffered instant death. He had an income of Rs. 6,400 per month as his salary. As a result of such accidental death, the petitioners who are his family members were put into terrible financial hardship. Such an accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the said bus bearing No. WMH 59.
( 3 ) NATIONAL Insurance Co. Ltd. , as the insurer of the said bus, contested the case by filing written statement wherein all the material allegations made by petitioners had been denied. The said company further stated that the claim of the petitioners was excessive.
( 4 ) THE New India Assurance Co. Ltd. as the insurer of the scooter also filed a written statement wherein it was specifically claimed that the driver of the offending bus bearing No. WMH 59 was solely responsible for the accident resulting in the death of the victim.
( 5 ) THE learned Tribunal after taking into consideration the pleadings on record framed as many as five issues.
( 6 ) AFTER consideration of the evidence on record and the other relevant facts and circumstances, the learned Tribunal by the impugned judgment and order dated 23. 6. 1998 allowed the claim application and directed both the said insurance companies to pay compensation in the manner as specified therein.
( 7 ) BEING aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said impugned judgment, the New india Assurance Co. Ltd. preferred the instant appeal wherein it had been categorically asserted that the insurer of the scooter No. WNJ 7748 cannot be directed to pay any amount of compensation since the owner of the said scooter did not incur any liability. It had been claimed that the insurance policy indemnifies the owner and the owner having died, question of payment of compensation by the concerned insurance company could hardly arise. It was further pointed out that in absence of any liability fastened on the insurer, appellant insurer could not be directed to make any payment to the claimants-respondents. The appellant New India Assurance Co. Ltd. , therefore, sought for setting aside of the judgment and award dated 23. 6. 1998.
( 8 ) IT was submitted by learned counsel mr. Kamal Krishna Das for the appellant new India Assurance Co. Ltd. that learned tribunal was not justified in directing the insurer of the concerned company to pay any compensation whatsoever. Referring to the decision in the case of Oriental Fire and Genl. Ins. Co. Ltd. \. Shakuntala Devi, 1991 0 ACJ 177 (Allahabad), it was submitted that the insurance company (insurer)is not liable to compensate the heirs of the deceased insured who dies in accident involving the insured vehicle. It was the categorical submission of learned counsel for the appellant that the insurance company cannot be under any legal obligation to compensate the heirs of the insured. In the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Siddanna Nimbanna Jawali, 2001 acj 1774 (Karnataka), it was submitted that the third parties cannot include the owner; the owner-insured is not covered by the policy. [ref: Minu B. Mehta v. Bal-krishna Ramchandra Nayan, 1977 ACJ 118 (SC)].
( 9 ) IN a judgment of the Division Bench-828 of this court in the case of New India assurance Co. Ltd. v. Krishna Khatua, 2003 ACJ 1974 (Calcutta), it was held that the insurance policy makes insurer to pay compensation. Insured is held to be not covered by policy.
( 10 ) MR. Kamal Krishna Das, learned counsel appearing for the appellant insurer submitted that the liability of the insur
