Back
2016 Supreme(P&H) 2158
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
DARSHAN SINGH, J.
National Insurance Company Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Hari Mohan and another - Respondents
FAO No. 5947 of 2012 (O&M)
Decided On : 24-10-2016
For the Appellant :Mr. D.P. Gupta, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. Ramender Chauhan, Advocate.
The central legal point established is that entitlement to compensation under the personal accident cover is limited to the registered owner who is capable of driving the vehicle at the time of the accident, as per the insurance policy and the India Motor Tariff regulations.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act - Personal Accident Cover - Section 163-A - 36
Fact of the Case:
The claimant filed a petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act for compensation due to injuries from a vehicular accident. The claimant, not the registered owner, was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident and was awarded compensation under the personal accident cover.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the claimant, not being the registered owner, was not entitled to compensation under the personal accident cover as per the insurance policy and the India Motor Tariff regulations. The court set aside the previous award and held the claimant entitled to a reduced sum under no fault liability.
Issues: The main issue was whether the claimant, not being the registered owner, was entitled to compensation under the personal accident cover.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the insurance policy and the India Motor Tariff regulations to determine that the personal accident cover was only available to the registered owner who was capable of driving the vehicle at the time of the accident. The court also considered relevant case law to support its decision.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the previous award was set aside. The claimant was held entitled to a reduced sum of Rs. 25,000 under no fault liability.
DARSHAN SINGH, J.
1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant-National Insurance Company Limited (respondent No.2 in the claim petition) against the award dated 06.09.2012 passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jind (hereinafter called the “Tribunal”), vide which though the claim petition filed by respondent No.1-claimant Hari Mohan under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter called the “Act”) has been held to be not maintainable, yet he has been awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- under the personal accident cover on account of the injuries suffered by him in the motor vehicular accident, which took place on 08.08.2010.
2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case meticulously.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company contended that Balbir Singh the father of respondent No.1-claimant was the registered owner of the motorcycle bearing registration No.HR-31F-4293 involved in the accident and insured with the appellant-Insurance Company. He contended that the learned Tribunal has held that as the claimant has borrowed the motorcycle owned by his father so his claim petition under Section 163-A of the Act was not maintainable. However, he has been wrongly awarded the compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- under the personal accident cover. He contended that the compensation under personal accident cover can only be granted to the registered owner who is himself driving the vehicle. Admittedly, claimant Hari Mohan was not the registered owner, so as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and the India Motor Tariff regulations, he was not entitled for compensation under personal accident cover. To support his contentions, he relied upon cases Sushila and others Vs. Sh. Pankaj Mahajan and another 2013 (1) PLR 715, Cholamandlam MS General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Smt. Ramesh and others FAO No.3764 of 2010 decided on 14.05.2014 and M/s Reliance General Insurance Company Vs. Ranjit and another 2016 ACJ 1050.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1-claimant contended that the claimant is the son of the registered owner of the vehicle. The insurance policy was comprehensive policy. He has stepped into the shoes of the owner by operating the vehicle, so he cannot be treated to be the third party and will be entitled to compensation under the personal accident cover. To support his contentions, he relied upon cases New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Umesh Kumari and others 2010(1) RCR (Civil) 669 and Bajaj Allianz Insurance Co. Limited Vs. Poonam and others 2015(2) PLR 235.
5. Thus, he contended that there is no illegality in the impugned award.
6. I have duly considered the aforesaid contentions.
7. Respondent No.1-claimant Hari Mohan has filed the claim petition under Section 163-A of the Act for grant of compensation on account of the injuries suffered by him in this accident. As per the admitted facts, the claimant has borrowed the motorcycle bearing registration No.HR-31F-4293 owned by his father Balbir Singh. It is further the case of the claimant that on 08.08.2010 he was moving the aforesaid motorcycle for going to village Naraingarh. Due to the headlights of TATA Sumo vehicle coming from the opposite direction he unfortunately hit a bullock-cart moving ahead of the motorcycle, which resulted into the accident and consequent injuries on his body. Thus, it evident from the facts of the case that Balbir Singh the father of the claimant was the registered owner of the motorcycle in question. The claimant has borrowed the motorcycle of his father and was driving the same at the time of the accident.
8. Ex.R2 is the copy of the insurance policy. The Liability Premium Computation provided in the insurance policy is as under :-
B. Liability Premium Computation (
