Claimants entitled to compensation under Motor Vehicles Act despite deceased's negligence; insurance policy covers third parties, affirming insurer's liability for damages.

JUDGMENT

Meenakshi Madan Rai, J. - (i) The Appellant-Insurance Company, herein, was ordered to pay compensation of Rs.32,25,946/- (Rupees thirty two lakhs, twenty five thousand, nine hundred and forty six) only, to Respondents No.1, 2 and 3 on account of the death of the husband of Respondent No.1 and the father of Respondents No.2 and 3, in a motor vehicle accident, involving a Truck, bearing Registration No. SK-04-D/0294, driven by the deceased on 14.05.2016, which met with an accident near Rambi Bazaar, West Bengal. Aggrieved by the said Judgment, dated 18.04.2019 in MACT Case No.80 of 2017, the Appellant assails the same.

2. Learned Counsel for the Appellant contended that the admitted position of the Respondents No.1 to 3 (Claimants No.1 to 3 before the Learned Tribunal) is that the deceased was driving the vehicle in accident at the relevant time and no other vehicle was involved. It was also admitted by Respondents No.1 to 3 that the accident had occurred due to the deceased, driving the vehicle at an excessive speed, which resulted in his death by his own negligence. Hence, the Respondents No.1 to 3 cannot take advantage of the fault of the deceased who was the tortfeasor and seek compensation. It was next contended that the concerned vehicle had no valid Route Permit to ply and it had not been certified by the concerned Authority as being fit to be used as a Goods Carrying Vehicle. Despite the facts supra before the Learned Tribunal, the compensation was erroneously granted and deserves to be set aside. In support of his contentions, Learned Counsel placed reliance on the ratio of Pawan Kumar and Another v. Harkishan Dass Mohan Lal and Others (2014) 3 SCC 590; Khenyei v. New India Assurance Company Limited and Others (2015) 9 SCC 273; National Insurance Company Limited v. Ashalata Bhowmik and Others (2018) 9 SCC 801 and T.O. Anthony v. Karvarnan and Others (2008) 3 SCC 748.

3.(i) Per contra, Learned Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 3 contended that no error emanates in the grant of compensation to the said Respondents, as the documents of the vehicle including the Insurance Policy, which was a Comprehensive Policy, the Driving Licence of the deceased and the Route Permit were valid at the time of the accident. The attention of this Court was invited to the provisions of Section 147(1)(b)(i) of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 (for short, the 'M.V. Act') and it was urged that it clearly states that the Insurance Policy insures the person or classes of persons specified in the Policy against any liability which may be incurred by him in respect of the death or bodily injury to 'any person,' including the owner of the goods or his authorized representative carried in the vehicle, or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the motor vehicle in a public place. That, the term 'any person' thereby includes the deceased employed Driver, besides which, he is a third party being neither the insured nor the insurer. On this count, strength was garnered from the ratio in The Branch Manager , National Insurance Co. Ltd. , Gangtok v. Master Suraj Subba and Another AIR 2014 Sikkim 7 wherein it was held that the deceased, who was the husband of the insured, had a valid Driving Licence, was not a party to the agreement of Insurance and thereby fell within the meaning of 'third party.' It was also urged that the provisions of Section 166 of the M.V. Act is benevolent legislation intended to mitigate the difficulties of the Claimants who seek compensation on account of the death of the earning member of their family, hence the Respondents No.1 to 3 are entitled