IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
N. N. MITHAL, G. D. DUBEY
ORIENTAL FIRE, GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. - Appellant
Versus
SHAKUNTALA DEVI - Respondents
F. A. F. O. 385 Of 1980
Decided On : 12/13/1989
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - SECTIONS 95 AND 96 - INSURANCE POLICY - INTERPRETATION - LIABILITY OF INSURANCE COMPANY - DEATH OF INSURED IN ACCIDENT INVOLVING OWN INSURED VEHICLE - NO LIABILITY ON INSURANCE COMPANY.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased, Jagdish Prasad, was driving his insured tractor when he met with an accident and died. His wife filed a claim for compensation from the insurance company, which was contested by the company on the ground that it was not liable to pay compensation to the deceased who was insured himself.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the insurance policy did not cover the death of the insured himself in an accident from his own vehicle. The liability of the insurance company arose only when the insured incurred any liability in respect of an accident. In the instant case, the insured had not incurred any liability to pay any damages or compensation to any person.
Issues: Whether the insurance policy issued by the appellant was covered by S. 95 (i) (B) (i) (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted S. 95 (1) (b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, which requires the insurance company to indemnify the insured against any liability which may be incurred by him in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any person or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place. The court held that the words "any person" occurring in S. 95 (1) (b) of the Act did not include the insured himself.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the judgment of the lower court was set aside, and the claim petition was rejected.
( 1 ) A very interesting point arises in this appeal, whether descendants of an insured can claim compensation from an insurance company if his death is caused in an accident involving his own insured vehicle. It arises from a Judgment and order of the Claims Tribunal, Jhansi, in case No. 7 of 1976, awarding a compensation, of Rupees 1,51,000/- to the respondent. The Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Ltd. , Agra has come in appeal.
( 2 ) IT has been alleged that Jagdish Prasad the husband of the petitioner was driving his International Tractor No. USG 7468 on 22-9-1975. On that date, it was raining heavily. At about 8. 00 p. m. , he was returning home. When he reached near village Chhappar, he applied brake to avoid accident to third person coming from opposite direction, but the brake slipped and the tractor fell from the edge of the road causing the death of owner cum driver Jagdish Prasad and two others. Jagdish Prasad was the owner of the tractor and insurance policy was also issued in his name. The appellant contested the claim and alleged, inter alia, that it was not liable to pay any compensation to the deceased who was insured himself. The jurisdiction of the Court to try the petition was also challenged.
( 3 ) ON the pleadings of the parties, the learned Judg. had framed four issues.
( 4 ) THE first issue was whether the accident resulting in the death of Jagdish Prasad was caused due to his own negligence. This was answered in the negative. The second issue was whether the insurance policy issued by the appellant was covered by S. 95 (i) (B) (i) (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The third issue was whether the award can be made against the petitioner without impleading the co-insured as opposite-party. These two issues were answered in favour of the petitioner and it was held that the death or fatal injuries to the insured was also covered by the policy. The issue No. 3 had been answered in the negative. The fourth issue was regarding the quantum of damages. Under this issue the compensation of Rs. 1,51,000. 00 was arrived at.
( 5 ) ONLY one point has been argued in this case. Our attention was drawn to Ss. 95 and 96 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). It was submitted that u/s. 95 of the Act the Insurance Company undertakes to indemnify the liability which may be incurred by him due to accident to third party or to his vehicle, if it is insured comprehensively. It was also urged that this liability arises only when a judgment is passed against the insured u/s. 96 of the Act.
( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondent urged that the insurance policy on record shows that the insurance was comprehensive. According to learned counsel, the comprehensive policy covers : firstly the insured, secondly accident or damages to third party and lastly damages to the vehicle. Learned counsel for the respondent interpreted S. 95 of the Act, urging that the words "any person" occurring in S. 95 (1) (b) of the Act includes the insured also.
( 7 ) IN reply to the above contention, learned counsel for the appellant urged that if the argument of the respondents counsel is admitted, then the words "by him" occurring in the aforesaid section and the wordings of sub-cl. (1) of S. 96 of the Act will be rendered meaningless it was urged that the intention of the Legislature was clear by reading of Ss. 95 and 96 of the Act. These two sections clearly say that the Insurance Company is required to indemnify the insured against losses caused to his vehicle or to third party. It does not cover the cases of death of the insured himself in accident from his own vehicle.
( 8 ) THE relevant portion of S. 95 of the Act, to which or attention was drawn, reads as under :"95. Requirements of Policies and Limits of Liability.- (1) In order to comply with the requirements of this Chapter, a policy of insurance must be a policy which- (a) is issued by a person who is an authorised insurer or by a co-operativ
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.