Back
2009 Supreme(P&H) 1563
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
A.N.Jindal, J.
Akash Kalra
Versus
Permila Devi
First Appeal Order No. 2363 of 2008,
Decided On : SEPTEMBER 4, 2009
The liability of the Insurance Company for the spare driver is limited to the extent as arising under the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act - Compensation - Section 147 - Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 - The court discussed the liability of the Insurance Company for the spare driver and the interpretation of the provisions of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The court held that the Insurance Company's liability for the spare driver is limited to the extent as arising under the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923. The court also referred to the case of United India Insurance Company Ltd v. Shanthavva and others, 2006(3) RCR(Civil) 540:2006 ACJ 1222 to support its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The owner of a truck challenged the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, seeking the Insurance Company to be held liable for the whole compensation amount. The claim arose from a motor vehicle accident resulting in the death of the driver and a helper.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Insurance Company's liability for the spare driver is limited to the extent as arising under the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923. The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Tribunal's decision on the apportionment of compensation.
Issues: The issues included the liability of the Insurance Company for the spare driver, the validity of the driving license, and the maintainability of the claim petition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Insurance Company's liability for the spare driver is limited to the extent as arising under the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923, and referred to the case of United India Insurance Company Ltd v. Shanthavva and others, 2006(3) RCR(Civil) 540:2006 ACJ 1222 to support its decision.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the court upheld the Tribunal's decision on the apportionment of compensation.
A.N.Jindal, J.
1. Akash Kalra, owner of the truck bearing Reg. No. HR 38L- 3173, has challenged the award dated 14.2.2008 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Sonepat (herein reffered as the Tribunal), whereby the claimants - respondent Nos. 1 to 3 (herein referred as the claimants) were awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 4.15/- lacs on account of the death of Dilawar Singh in a motor vehicle accident.
2. The petition was filed by the claimants under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act (herein referred as the Act). The pleas taken by the appellant (respondent in the claim petition) are that since it was a comprehensive policy, therefore, the Insurance Company respondent No. 4 should have been held liable for the whole amount, but the Tribunal ordered that the Company would be liable to pay Rs. 3,27,705/- and the remaining amount would be paid by the appellant.
3. Having heard the rival contentions the Company has supported the observations made by the Tribunal while limiting the liability.
4. As per facts, Dilawar Singh (since deceased) was driving the truck bearing Reg No. HR 38L- 3173 owned by the appellant. He was coming from Rourkela (Orrisa) to Delhi for transporting the goods, whereas, Shivdutt was working as a helper. While, they were entering Chuhaki Mar Nala, District Rai Garh (Chhatishgarh), then another vehicle came from the opposite side and during the crossing process the said truck struck against the rear portion of the truck, being driven by the deceased. Resultantly, Dilawar Singh as well as Shiv Dutt died as a result of falling of the truck in the Nala.
5. The Insurance company in its written statement took preliminary objections, inter-alia, that Dilawar Singh was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of the incident; the accident did not take place in the manner as mentioned in the claim petition and Dilawar Singh was a gratuitous passenger, traveling in the truck, therefore, the claim petition was not maintainable. The Insurance Company further stated that Shiv Dutt as the driver and the Insurance Company is not liable to pay for the second driver.
6. From the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed :-
"1. Whether Dilawar Singh died in a road accident on from Rourkela 7.8.2006 due to use of Truck No. HR 38L-3173, allegedly being driven by deceased Dilawar Singh at that time? OPP
2. If issue No. 1 is proved, to what amount of compensation, the petitioners are entitled to and from whom? OPP
3. Whether deceased Dilawar Singh was not holding a valid and effective driving licence and the offending vehicle was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy at the time of the accident? OPR-3
4. Relief."
7. After scrutinising the entire evidence, the Tribunal held the Company liable as per provisions of Section 147 of the Act to the tune of Rs. 3,27,705/- and for the remaining amount owner of the offending vehicle was held liable.
8. Now, the owner has agitated that the policy being comprehensive in nature, the Insurance Company was liable to pay the whole amount of compensation.
9. Having heard the rival contentions no force could he found in the arguments advanced by the counsel for the appellant. The Insurance Company was responsible for the loss to the extent, it was covered by way of insurance policy. In other words, the parties were bound by the contract entered into between the parties. The appellant has urged that he could employ two drivers, on a long route and he had employed as such. He having paid premium for both the drivers the Company was liable to compensate both the drivers. The Company was liable to compensate both the deaths. In this case, assuming that Shiv Dutt was the main driver, the Tribunal has paid compensation for the additional driver (Dilawar Singh) as per provisions of Section 147 of the Act. Even the spare driver who has been engaged in driving, if premium had been paid, is covered by the policy of the Ins
