Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V.M. VELUMANI, J.
The Divisional Manager, M/s. Oriental Insurance Company Limited - Appellant
Versus
Kuppusamy and Anr. - Respondents
C.M.A.No.351 of 2020 and C.M.P.No.2278 of 2020
Decided On : 03-02-2021
Motor Vehicles Act - Compensation - Section 173 - The judgment discusses the liability of the insurance company to pay compensation to the legal representatives of the deceased owner-cum-driver of a vehicle involved in an accident. The court considered the provisions of Section 166 and 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the nature of the insurance policy, and the extent of coverage available under the policy. The court also referred to relevant case laws to determine the insurer's liability and the entitlement of the claimants to compensation.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased, Vignesh, was driving a Tata Ace when he lost control and caused an accident resulting in his death. The legal representatives filed a claim petition under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act against the appellant-Insurance Company. The Tribunal held the insurance company liable to pay compensation to the respondents.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the deceased was the tort feasor and the legal representatives were not entitled to claim compensation under Sections 163(A) or 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The court also held that the insurance policy only indemnified the owner for claims made by third parties and that the legal representatives were entitled to a maximum of Rs.2,00,000 under Personal Accident coverage.
Issues: The issues involved the liability of the insurance company, the entitlement of the legal representatives to claim compensation, and the extent of coverage available under the insurance policy.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Sections 166 and 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the nature of the insurance policy, and the extent of coverage available under the policy. The court also relied on relevant case laws to determine the insurer's liability and the entitlement of the claimants to compensation.
Final Decision: The court partially allowed the appeal, setting aside the award of Rs.15,72,000 and reducing it to Rs.2,00,000 under Personal Accident coverage. The appellant-Insurance Company was directed to deposit the modified award amount with interest, and the respondents were permitted to withdraw their respective share of the award amount.
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer : This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and Decree dated 14.06.2018 made in M.C.O.P.No.150 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, Hosur.)
The matter is heard through "Video Conferencing".
2. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the award dated 14.06.2018 made in M.C.O.P.No.150 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, Hosur.
3. The appellant is the respondent in M.C.O.P.No.150 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, Hosur. The respondents filed the said claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- as compensation for the death of their son viz., Vignesh, who died in the accident that took place on 05.10.2012.
4. According to respondents, on 05.10.2012 at about 01.30 hours (midnight), while the deceased Vignesh was driving the Tata Ace Tempo bearing Registration No.KA 51 A 4857 on Hosur – Thally Road Junction near Sangam Steel Company, the driver of the Tata Ace lost control and dashed on the right side road tree and caused the accident. In the accident, the said Vignesh sustained multiple grievous injuries in his head and all over the body. Immediately after the accident, the said Vignesh was taken to Government Hospital, Hosur for first aid treatment. Thereafter, he was taken to Ashok Hospital, Hosur for further treatment. Then, he was taken to St.Johns Medical College Hospital, Bangalore. Inpsite of treatment, the said Vignesh succumbed to injuries on 09.10.2012. Therefore the respondents, being the parents of the deceased filed the above said claim petition under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the appellant-Insurance Company, being the insurer of the Tata Ace.
5. The appellant-Insurance Company, being the insurer of the Tata Ace filed counter statment and denied all the averments made by the respondents. The respondents have to prove that the policy issued by the appellant for the Tata Ace bearing Registration No.KA 51 A 4857 in policy No.455100/31/2012/7890 for the period from 31.03.2012 to 30.03.2013 was in force on the date of accident, i.e., on 05.10.2012, as the policy was not yet confirmed. In the F.I.R., it was mentioned that the deceased only drove the Tata Ace in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident and no other vehicles are involved in the alleged accident and the deceased was a tort feasor. From the policy papers it is seen that there was a limited coverage available for the Personal Accident for owner driver – GR – 36A. The Personal Accident cover has been issued under Section III for owner – Driver (CSI) Rs.2,00,000/- only. Hence, the legal representatives are legally entitled to the limited coverage of Rs.2,00,000/- only under the contractual liability and there was no cover for the owner under the statutory liability. The contractual liability arose under the policy could be claimed by the claimants from the insurance company by filing claim forms. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim of death of the driver cum owner of the impugned vehicle. The alleged accident was held due to own tort of the deceased. Hence, there shall be no statutory liability under the Motor Vehicles Act cast on the head of the Insurance Company. There shall not be any claim in respect of own damage of the insured vehicle before the Tribunal. The claim form in respect of Personal Accident coverage and claim form in respect of vehicle damage have been submitted by claimants before the Insurance Company and the same have been denied by the Insurance Company. The claim petition has to be dismissed on the ground of no jurisdiction to entertain own tort claim and own damage claim and there shall be no statutory liability. The respondents have to
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....
Point of law: Insurance Company was, in appeal before this Court challenging the judgment of the High Court awarding compensation to the owner of the insured vehicle.
The insurer's liability is limited to the terms of the insurance policy, which does not cover the owner's death while riding their own motorcycle unless additional premium was paid.
The onus to prove breach of policy conditions is on the insurer, and the scope of coverage under the insurance policy for personal accidental risk is determined by the terms of the contract of insura....
Legal heirs of the tort-feasor are not entitled to maintain a claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act against the insurer of the motorcycle.
The legal heirs of the deceased, as the tort-feasor, were not entitled to maintain the claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act against the appellant-Insurance Company.
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
