Back
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
S. P. SRIVASTAVA, N. C. KARAMBELKAR
KALABAI CHOUBEY - Appellant
Versus
RAJABAHADUR YADAV - Respondents
MISC. APPEAL 63 Of 1990
Decided On : 07/18/2001
Motor Vehicles Act - Compensation - S. 110-A, S. 110-B, S. 140, S. 173, S. 96, S. 149, S. 147 - The judgment discusses the liability of the insurer to pay compensation to third parties, the statutory liability of the insurer, and the rights and obligations between the insurer and the insured. It also addresses the conditions under which the insurer is entitled to recover any excess amount from the insured. The court emphasizes the importance of affording the insured an opportunity to be heard before enhancing the amount of compensation, as the ultimate burden remains with the insured/owner of the motor vehicle.
Fact of the Case:
The claimants sought enhancement of compensation under S. 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, after the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarded them Rs. 25,000 as no-fault liability compensation from the owner/driver of the motor vehicle. The Tribunal rejected their claim against the Insurance Company. The appellants filed an appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation to Rs. 4,27,600. During the appeal, the appellants sought to dispense with the service of notice on the owner/driver, which was allowed but later dismissed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the liability of the insurer is statutory and limited, and the insured must have been proved to be under a liability first, and the liability cast on him must be covered by the insurance policy. The court held that the insured cannot be saddled with any liability behind his back without affording him an opportunity of being heard, as the ultimate burden always remains with the insured/owner of the motor vehicle. The court dismissed the appeal as incompetent, sustaining the preliminary objection.
Issues: The issues revolved around the liability of the insurer, the rights and obligations between the insurer and the insured, and the conditions under which the insurer is entitled to recover any excess amount from the insured. The court also addressed the importance of affording the insured an opportunity to be heard before enhancing the amount of compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The statutory liability of the insurer is limited, and the insured must have been proved to be under a liability first, and the liability cast on him must be covered by the insurance policy. The insured cannot be saddled with any liability behind his back without affording him an opportunity of being heard, as the ultimate burden always remains with the insured/owner of the motor vehicle.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal as incompetent, sustaining the preliminary objection. There was no order as to costs.
( 1 ) THE appellants claimants had filed an application under S. 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, for short), for the award of compensation initiating the proceedings arising out of an accident involving a motor vehicle, a tractor bearing registration No. C. P. W. 5418 wherein Chandrabhan Choubey had met his untimely death.
( 2 ) THE Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal on a consideration of the evidence and the materials brought on record by the various parties had determined that the present appellants i. e. the wife and the children of the deceased were entitled to an amount of Rs. 25,000/- towards compensation on the basis of no fault liability from the owner/driver of the motor vehicle in question only; exonerating the Insurance Company on account of the violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.
( 3 ) ACCORDINGLY, the aforesaid Tribunal granted an award of only Rs. 25,000/- under S. 110-B of the Act, specifying that the said amount be paid by the owner/driver of the offending motor vehicle tractor on the basis of "no fault liability" indicating that the said award was being given as contemplated under S. 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It was indicated further that claim of the claimants (present appellants) was rejected in its entirety as against the Insurance Company impleaded as the respondent No. 2.
( 4 ) FEELING aggrieved by the aforesaid award, the wife and the children of the deceased have filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of the amount of the compensation to the extent of Rs. 4,27,600/- for which amount application under S. 110-A of the Act had been filed. It may be noticed that in the memo of appeal, the age of the eldest son of the deceased was shown to be 30 years and the age of the second son was shown to be 16 years and the age of the daughter of the deceased was shown to be 18 years.
( 5 ) DURING the pendency of the apppeal, the appellants had moved an application being I. A. No. 7626/98 praying that the service of the notice on the owner/driver of the offending motor vehicle, respondent No. 1 be dispensed with.
( 6 ) THE aforesaid application was allowed by this Court vide the order dated 23-7-1998 and the service of the notices on the owner/driver, the respondent No. 1 was dispensed with.
( 7 ) SUBSEQUENTLY, however, another application being I. A. No. 3574/2000, was filed. The appellants had prayed for the recall of the aforesaid order and for the grant of permission to serve the notices of the appeal on the respondent.
( 8 ) THE aforesaid application was however dismissed by this Court vide the order dated 30-3-2001.
( 9 ) THE net result, therefore, is that in this appeal filed under S. 110 (D) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 S. 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988) wherein the claimants seek enhancement of the amount of compensation, only the insurer, the respondent No. 2 stands served with the notices of the appeal. The owner/driver of the offending motor vehicle on whom the liability has been fastened under the impugned award had not been served with the notices of the appeal. Obviously, the appellants seek enhancement of the amount awarded by the Tribunal without affording an opportunity of being heard to the owner/driver of the offending motor vehicle.
( 10 ) THE learned counsel for the Insurer, in the circumstances as indicated above, has raised a preliminary objection in regard to the maintainability of this appeal asserting that the amount of the compensation under the law cannot be enhanced behind the back of the owner/driver of the offending motor vehicle.
( 11 ) THE learned counsel for the appellants in opposition to the aforesaid preliminary objection has asserted that the liability fastened on the insurer is a statutory liability which taking into consideration the legislative intent underlying the relevant provisions of the Act, cannot be said to be dependent on the liability of the owner/insured o
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
