Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
Anoop Kumar Dhand, J.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Smt. Sarasvati Devi – Respondent
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2707 of 2015
Decided On : 12-10-2022
Motor Vehicles Act - Compensation - Section 163A - Ex.9, Ex.14, Ex.16 - The court discussed the interpretation of Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the liability of the insurance company to pay compensation. It highlighted the legal provisions regarding the entitlement to compensation and the extent of liability of the insurance company as per the contract of insurance.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant insurance Company appealed against the judgment and award passed by the Court of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The claim petition filed by the claimants-respondents under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was allowed, directing the appellant-insurance Company to pay compensation to the claimants-respondents.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the claimants were not entitled to claim compensation under Section 163A of the Act, but they were entitled to get compensation of Rs. 1 lac in terms of the contract of policy. The appeal filed by the Insurance Company was partly allowed, and the claimants were directed to refund the additional amount of Rs. 13,500/- with interest to the appellant insurance Company.
Issues: The main issue was whether the claimants were entitled to compensation under Section 163A of the Act and the extent of liability of the insurance company as per the contract of insurance.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the interpretation of Section 163A of the Act and the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ramkhiladi and the Bombay High Court in the case of Rama Vishram Gavas to determine the entitlement to compensation and the liability of the insurance company.
Final Decision: The appeal filed by the Insurance Company was partly allowed, and the claimants were directed to refund the additional amount of Rs. 13,500/- with interest to the appellant insurance Company.
JUDGMENT
1. Instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant insurance Company against the judgment and award dated 17.04.2015 passed by the Court of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District and Sessions Judge No.2, Beawar in M.A.C. Case No.257/2012(118/2011) by which the claim petition filed by the claimants-respondents under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ’the Act of 1988’) has been allowed and the appellant-insurance Company has been directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.1,13,500/- with interest @ 6% from the date of filing the claim petition to the claimants- respondents.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant-insurance Company submits that the accident occurred on 7.10.2010 and after the said accident, the injured-Jeevanlal was admitted in Government Amrit Kaur Hospital, Beawar, District Ajmer wherein hospital’s records, it was mentioned that the injured slipped from the motor cycle. Counsel submits that his discharge ticket (Ex.10) of the said hospital indicates that because of slipping from motor cycle, he sustained certain injuries. Counsel submits that as per the record of S.K. Soni Hospital (Exs. 14 & 16), the cause of death of the injured/deceased is cardiac arrest. The certain manipulations were done in the S.K. Soni Hospital’s record bearing (Ex.14), the cause of death was shown as natural, while in the similar document (Ex- 16), the cause of death was mentioned as accident. Counsel submits that these documents were manipulated to get compensation from the Tribunal. Counsel submits that the name of the registered owner of the vehicle is Naresh Kumar son of Jeevalal, but intentionally his identity was suppressed and his name was mentioned as Naresh Kumar son of Uttam Chand.
3. Counsel submits that the deceased was the father of the registered owner Naresh Kumar and in order to get claim under Section 163A of the Act of 1988, his identity was suppressed.
4. Counsel submits that in the Insurance Policy (Ex-9), the name of the registered owner is mentioned as Naresh Kumar Uttamchandani son of Jeevanlal. Counsel submits that when cross- examination was done with the witness AW-1 Tarun Kumar, he has admitted that the cause of death of the deceased was cardiac arrest and natural and his father was not working under the employment of his brother Naresh Kumar. Counsel submits that apart from above factual aspects, the claim petition filed by the claimants-respondents under Section 163A of the Act of 1988 was not maintainable because the deceased stepped into the shoes of the owner and in view of the judgment of the Ho’ble Apex Court delivered in the case of Ramkhiladi & Anr. Vs. United India insurance Company & Anr., reported in 2020 (1) R.A.R. 17 (SC), the claim petition filed by the claimants was not maintainable. Counsel submits that all these facts were overlooked by the Tribunal and the claim petition filed by the claimants was erroneously allowed. Hence, interference of this Court is warranted.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants-respondents opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the appellant insurance Company and submits that when the injured was admitted in the S.K. Soni Hospital and the records of the hospital i.e. the documents- Exs. 14 & 16 indicate that the injured met with a road traffic accident and in column 2 of these papers, the word "RTA" (i.e. Road Traffic Accident) was mentioned which specifies morbid condition about the cause of death. Counsel submits that because of road traffic accident, he died due to cardiac arrest because of the injuries sustained by him. Counsel submits that at the time of preparing the documents, the manner of death was mentioned as accidental as well as natural. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, no manipulation was done in the records of the hospital because in both documents i.e. (Exs. 14 & 16) the word "road traffic accident" was mentioned.
6. Counsel for the claimants is fair enough to admit the l
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the liability of the insurance company to pay compensation as per the contra....
Point of law: liability under Section 163A of the Act is on the owner of the vehicle as a person cannot be both, a claimant as also a recipient and, therefore, the heirs of the owner could not have m....
The central legal point established in the judgment is that under the M.V. Act, the liability of the insurance company depends on the interpretation of the provisions regarding third-party claims, an....
Under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, insurers cannot raise the defense of negligence against claimants, the deceased cannot be treated as a third party if they are related to the vehicle's....
Under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, claimants are not required to prove negligence; the onus lies on the insurer to establish any negligence to deny compensation.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the non-maintainability of a claim under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 when the owner himself is involved in the 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
