Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Satyen Vaidya, J.
ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. - Appellant
Vs.
Smt. Madhuballa and others - Respondents
F.A.O. No. 37 of 2013 a/w FAO No. 465 of 2015
Decided On : 09-04-2024
Motor Vehicles Act - Compensation Claim - Section 166 - 147 - 2(21) - 2(14) - 147(2) - [KEYWORD] - [SUBJECT] - [166, 147, 2(21), 2(14), 147(2)] - The court discussed the applicability of Section 166 and Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, along with the definitions provided in sections 2(21) and 2(14) and the provisions of 147(2) in determining the liability for compensation and insurance coverage in a motor accident case.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a compensation claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for the death of Sh. Vinod Kumar in a motor vehicle accident. The claimants sought compensation from the owner, driver, and insurer of the vehicle.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the deceased was not covered under the accepted categories of persons under Section 147 of the Act, and therefore, the owner was not entitled to be indemnified by the insurer. The court also modified the compensation awarded to the claimants based on the legal principles established in previous judgments.
Issues: The issues included the cause of the accident, entitlement to compensation, insurance coverage, and the status of the deceased in the vehicle.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the deceased was not covered under the accepted categories of persons under Section 147 of the Act, and therefore, the owner was not entitled to be indemnified by the insurer. The court also applied legal principles from previous judgments to modify the compensation awarded to the claimants.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeals, modified the compensation to Rs.17,40,400/-, and held the owner liable for the payment of compensation, while exonerating the insurer from indemnifying the owner.
JUDGMENT :
Satyen Vaidya, J.
Both these appeals have been heard and are being decided together as these arise from the same award dated 31.10.2012 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court, Solan, H.P. (for short, “Tribunal”) in MACT Petition No. 8FTC/2 of 2010.
2. The appellants in FAO No. 465 of 2015 were the claimants having preferred petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, “The Act”) before the learned Tribunal. The respondents Notified Area Committee, Rajgarh and Sh. Kharak Singh, were impleaded as owner and driver, respectively of the ill-fated vehicle. The appellant in FAO No. 37 of 2013 was impleaded as insurer.
3. The claimants claimed compensation on account of death of Sh. Vinod Kumar. Claimant No.1 is the wife, claimants No. 2 and 3 are the children and claimant No. 4 is the mother of deceased Vinod Kumar.
4. It was alleged that the deceased Vinod Kumar was working as Junior Engineer on contract basis with the owner. On 01.12. 2009, the deceased was travelling in vehicle No.HP16-1251 belonging to the owner and being driven by the driver from Solan to Rajgarh . The vehicle met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of the driver. The deceased received serious injuries in the accident, which resulted in his death. The deceased was stated to be 32 years old at the time of death and his income was claimed at Rs.8700/- per month from salary being paid by the owner and Rs. 25,000/- from agriculture. A sum of Rs.25,00,000/- alongwith interest was claimed as compensation.
5. The owner in its reply to the claim petition admitted that the deceased was posted as Junior Engineer with the owner on contract basis. It was submitted that the total salary of deceased was Rs.5800/- and in addition, he was also being paid a sum of Rs.2900/- per month as D.P. allowance. The negligence on part of the driver was admitted. It was alleged that the driver and the deceased both were drunk at the time of accident. The vehicle was stated to be insured with the insurer and on such ground indemnification was sought.
6. The driver separately filed his reply and denied the cause of accident to be his rash and negligent driving. It was submitted that the driver was having a valid driving licence. The cause of accident was attributed to sudden failure of brakes of the vehicle. The compensation claimed by the claimants was stated to be highly exaggerated.
7. In its reply, the insurer denied its liability to indemnify the owner by alleging violation of the policy of insurance. The owner was stated to be not entitled for indemnification on the ground that the liability as had arisen in the case was not covered under Section 147 of the Act.
8. Learned trial Court framed the following issues:
2. If issue No.1 is decided in affirmative, to what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled to and from whom? OPP
3. Whether the accident was caused due to sheer negligence of respondent No.2 and deceased Vinod Kumar as they were fully drunkard for which no compensation can be granted for their wrong, as alleged? OPR-1.
4. Whether the accident in question occurred due to sudden failure of front brakes system of the vehicle, as alleged? OPR-2
5. Whether the vehicle in question was not insured with respondent No.3, as alleged? OPR-3
6. Whether the driver of the alleged vehicle at the time of accident was not holding a valid and effective driving licence, as alleged? OPR-3.
7. Whether the vehicle No. HP-16-1251 was not validly registered at the time of alleged accident, as alleged? OPR-3.
8. Whether the vehicle in question was being driven in contravention of standard terms and conditions of insurance policy and against Motor Vehicle and Rules and the deceased official
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in determining the liability for compensation and insurance cove....
Section 166 and 168 of Act empowers Tribunal(s) and Court(s) with jurisdiction to award just compensation.
Point of Law : In absence of salary certificate, the minimum wage notification can be a yardstick but at the same time cannot be an absolute one to fix the income of the deceased. In absence of docum....
The court ruled that the insurance company is liable for compensation despite the deceased traveling as a passenger in a goods vehicle, establishing non-exclusion of such passengers from coverage.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the provisions of Section 147 of the Act, 1988 as amended by the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1994, regarding the liabilit....
Point of law: Compensation - When a specific Policy has been taken by respondent No. 3-owner of the vehicle, then the liability of the Insurance Company will be confined to that arising under the Wor....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of liability to pay compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, emphasizing the need for the Insurance Company to prove the violat....
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
