Back
2009 Supreme(Chh) 74
2009(2) C.G.L.J. 155 (DB)
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Hon'ble Shri Rajeev Gupta, C.J. & Hon'ble Shri T.P. Sharma, J.
SHANTI BAI & OTHERS - Appellants
Vs.
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. - Respondent
M.A. No. 184 of 2005,
Decided on 2-3-2009.
Shri Malay Kumar Bhaduri, Advocate, for the Appellants.
Shri Dashrath Gupta, Advocate, for the Respondent.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a comprehensive policy under the Motor Vehicles Act does not cover the risk of the owner of the vehicle in the absence of payment of any extra premium for that purpose.
Headnote:
Motor Accident Claims - Motor Vehicles Act - Section 147
Fact of the Case:
The claimants appealed against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, which dismissed their claim for compensation for the death of the deceased in a motor accident. The deceased was the owner and driver of the motorcycle involved in the accident.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the deceased could not be treated as a 'Third Party' and that the comprehensive policy did not cover the risk of the owner of the vehicle due to the absence of payment of any extra premium for that purpose.
Issues: The main issue was whether the insurance company was liable to pay compensation to the claimants for the death of the deceased, who was the owner and driver of the motorcycle involved in the accident.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the Motor Vehicles Act, specifically Section 147, and the interpretation of a 'Comprehensive Policy' as discussed in the case of Dhanraj Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. The court held that the comprehensive policy did not cover the risk of the owner of the vehicle in the absence of payment of any extra premium for that purpose.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the decision of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to dismiss the claim petition. No costs were awarded.
As per Hon'ble Shri Rajeev Gupta, C.J. :-
1. The claimants have preferred this appeal against the impugned award dated 19-11-2004, passed by the 10th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (for short 'the Tribunal'), in Claim Case No. 05/2004.
2. The claimants, unfortunate widow and minor children of deceased Dhakela claimed compensation ofRs.24,35,136/- by filing a claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act for his death in the motor accident on 28-03-2002.
3. According to the claim petition, deceased Dhakela and his wife Shanti Bai were coming back to their village from Bankimongra on their motorcycle. As the road was too narrow deceased Dhakela with a view to give side to the Truck coming from the other side took down his motorcycle from the road. In the process the motorcycle skidded resulting in multiple serious injuries to Dhakela and his wife Shanti Bai. Dhakela was taken to the hospital Bankimongra from where he was referred to Bhilai Hospital. Dhakela was admitted in Sector-9 Hospital at Bhilai where he succumbed to his injuries on 31-03-2002. The claimants pleaded that deceased Dhakela was getting salary ofRs.8,994/- per month from South Eastern Coalfields Limited.
4. The insurer of the motorcycle contested the claim and denied its liability to pay compensation to the claimants on the plea that deceased Dhakela, the owner of the motorcycle did not pay any extra premium for covering his risk; the deceased cannot be treated as 'Third Party'; and the deceased himself was responsible for the accident.
5. The claimants examined A W -1 Shanti Bai, A W - 2 Daduram Chandra and A W - 3 Ramesh Kumar in support of their claim, wnereas the respondentl Insurance Company examined NA W -1 Abdul Kaleem in rebuttal.
6. The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence led by them held that the deceased cannot be treated as 'Third Party'. The Tribunal further held that no extra premium was paid for covering the risk of the deceased who was the owner ofthe motorcycle and was driving the motorcycle at the time of the accident. The Tribunal, therefore, following the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Dhanraj Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and another], dismissed the appellants' claim petition.
7. Shri Malay Kumar Bhaduri, learned counsel for the Appellants vehemently argued that as the policy issued by the respondent/Insurance Company was a 'Comprehensive Policy', the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the claimants for the death of deceased Dhakela though he was the owner of the motorcycle and was driving the motorcycle himself at the time of the accident.
8. Shri Dashrath Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent/Insurance Company, on the other hand, supported the award and submitted that the scope and extent of 'Comprehensive Policy' has been considered by the Apex Court in the case of Dhanrai (supra) which decision has been followed by the Tribunal in dismissing the appellants' claim petition.
9. Deceased Dhakela was the owner of the motorcycle and was driving the motorcycle at the time of the accident is not in dispute. The insurance policy produced before the Tribunal (Ex.DIl) does not indicate that any extra premium was paid by the owner of the motorcycle for covering his risk.
10. The Apex Court in the case of Dhanrai (supra) while considering the scope and extent of a 'Comprehensive Policy' observed in paras 7 to 9 :
"7. We have seen the Policy. It is a comprehensive policy. The question that arises is whether a comprehensive Policy would cover the risk of injury to the owner of the vehicle also. Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 reads as follows:
"147. Requirement of policies and limits of liability.--(1) In order to comply with the requirements of this Chapter, a policy of insurance must be a policy which-
( a) is issued by a person who is an authorized insurer; or
(b) insures the person or classes of persons specified in the policy to the
