Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R.P. Dholaria, J.
United India Insurance Company Limited – Appellant
Vs.
Barot Bharatbhai Arvindbhai and Ors. – Respondents
First Appeal No. 735 of 2016 and Civil Application No. 4039 of 2016 in First Appeal No. 735 of 2016
Decided On : 20-07-2016
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 163A, Section 146, Section 147, Section 165, Section 168 - The court discussed the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, particularly the jurisdiction of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to entertain claims made by the owner or a person claiming through the owner of the vehicle. The court also analyzed the interpretation of the terms of the insurance policy, specifically Section-III, which covers the risk of Personal Accident to Owner-Driver. The court highlighted the legal principles established by the Hon'ble Apex Court in various cases and emphasized the need for strict interpretation of the terms of the insurance contract.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, United India Insurance Company Ltd., filed an appeal against the judgment & award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mehsana. The deceased was driving a motorcycle insured by the appellant and met with an accident due to his sole negligence. The Tribunal awarded compensation to the claimant, the legal heir of the deceased, under the Personal Accident cover available to the Owner-Driver in the policy.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the claim petition filed by the original claimant was not maintainable under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, as the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to entertain claims made by the owner or a person claiming through the owner against the insurer. The court also concluded that the deceased was not entitled to receive compensation under the Personal Accident cover as he did not fulfill the conditions of the insurance policy.
Issues: The issues involved in the case were whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain the claim made by the owner or a person claiming through the owner of the vehicle, and whether the claimant was entitled to receive compensation under the Personal Accident cover available to the Owner-Driver in the policy.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the claim petition by the original claimant was not maintainable under the provisions of the Act, and the deceased was not entitled to receive compensation under the Personal Accident cover as he did not fulfill the conditions of the insurance policy. The court emphasized the need for strict interpretation of the terms of the insurance contract.
Final Decision: The appeal succeeded, and the judgment & award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was quashed and set aside. Any amount deposited by the appellant insurance company was to be refunded, and the Civil Application was disposed of accordingly.
R.P. Dholaria, J.
1. The present appeal is filed by appellant-United India Insurance Company Ltd. against the common judgment & award dated 31.12.2015 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Main), Mehsana in MACP No. 838 of 2009.
2. The short facts of case are that appellant was insurer of Motorcycle No. GJ-08-K-2769. Deceased Bharatbhai Arvindbhai Barot was driving said motorcycle at time of accident on 29.9.2009 which met with an accident. The said claim petition has been filed under Section 163A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ("the Act" for short) by legal heirs of said deceased Bharatbhai against owner & insurance company of said motorcycle. The appellant had appeared in said claim petition and contested claim on the grounds as set out in its written statement. After hearing parties, learned Tribunal has found deceased Bharatbhai solely negligent for causing accident in question but awarded a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to claimant - legal heir of deceased Bharatbhai on ground that appellant insurance company has received additional premium of Rs.50/- to cover Personal Accident (PA) risk of Owner-Driver and as deceased Bharatbhai was driving said insured motorcycle, then his legal heir is entitled to receive at least Rs.1,00,000/- under policy issued by appellant.
3. The appellant has taken out this appeal feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with impugned judgment & award passed by learned Tribunal, solely on ground that learned Tribunal has committed a gross jurisdictional error in directing appellant to pay Rs.1,00,000/- to claimant under cover of PA to Owner-Driver. Learned Advocate Mr. Maulik J. Shelat appearing on behalf of appellant insurance company has strenuously argued that learned Tribunal has not properly appreciated provisions of the Act and overlooked object & reasons of Act for which it is enacted. He has further submitted that learned Tribunal ought to have appreciated that as per Chapter - XI & XII of the Act, only cases related to Third Party can be adjudicated by Tribunal in motor accident claim petition but when admittedly claim made either by owner of vehicle or a person claiming through owner having stepped into shoe of owner of vehicle, then learned Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide lis between such person vis-a-vis. insurance company. He has submitted that deceased Bharatbhai was driving insured motorcycle and met with an accident due to his own wrong then naturally, person cannot get compensation for his own wrong and considering facts of present case, deceased Bharatbhai stepped into shoe of original owner namely Mr. Manuji Vanaji Vaghela. Hence, claim for death of deceased Bharatbhai cannot be considered as claim of Third Party. He has further submitted that as such learned Tribunal could not have awarded Rs.1,00,000/- under PA to Owner-Driver cover given in policy that too by not properly appreciating terms of insurance policy more particularly Section-III of policy which covers the risk of Personal Accident to Owner-Driver wherein condition is clear and unambiguous. Learned Tribunal ought to have referred/relied upon entire terms of policy rather referring only part of it. He has relied upon said Section-III of policy which is set out in grounds of appeal itself.
4. Learned Advocate Mr. Shelat has relied upon various decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court in a case of Ningama Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd., reported in, (2009) 13 SCC 710, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Rajni Devi & Ors. reported in, (2008) 5 SCC 736, United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Harchand Raichandan Lal, reported in, (2004) 8 SCC 644, National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Laxmi Narain Dhut, reported in, (2007) 3 SCC 700 and reported decision of this Court in a case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Heirs and L.Rs. Of Hiteshbhai Sureshbhai Patel and ors., reported in, 2011 (2) GLR 1003 and recent decision dated 13.7.2016 passed by this Court in First Appeal No. 1353 of 2015 in a case of Iffco
AI
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
