SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2002 Supreme(MP) 985

High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
A. K. GOHIL
GENDALAL - Appellant
Versus
SHANKARLAL - Respondents
M. A. 616 Of 1999
Decided On : 10/08/2002

Advocates Appeared:
M.A.Bohra, M.K.SHARMA, S.S.SWAMI

The liability of the insurance company under section 146 of the Motor Vehicles Act is statutory in nature for the claim of a third party.

Headnote:

Motor Vehicles Act - Compensation - Section 173 - 146, 147, 149(5)

Fact of the Case:

The appellant filed an appeal for enhancement of compensation under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The tribunal exonerated the insurance company from liability and declined to award interest due to delay by the claimant.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the insurance company was liable to pay compensation to the claimant and that the tribunal had not properly assessed the compensation. The court allowed the appeal and directed the insurance company to pay the compensation to the claimant.

Issues: The issues included the liability of the insurance company, proper assessment of compensation, and the delay caused by the claimant in the tribunal.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that under section 146 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the insurance of the vehicle against third party risk is compulsory. The liability of the insurance company is statutory in nature for the claim of a third party. The court also applied a structured formula for calculating compensation for fatal accidents.

Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the insurance company was directed to pay the compensation to the claimant.

GOHIL, J.

( 1 ) THE appellant-claimant has filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the award dated 15. 4. 1999 passed in Claim Case No. 5 of 1997 by the iv Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Indore, whereby the Tribunal has exonerated the insurance company from its liability and declined to award interest on the amount of compensation, on account of delay by the claimant.

( 2 ) ADMITTEDLY, the incident took place from tractor-trolley Nos. MPI 8837 and mpi 8856. It is also admitted on record that at the time of accident, the vehicle was being driven by one Kailash and was carrying 'baraat'. The learned Tribunal exonerated the insurance company on the ground that the tractor was insured only for agricultural purposes and not for the purposes of carrying 'baraat' or passengers in the trolley. It is also not in dispute that one kailash s/o Gendalal was a cyclist who was hit by the tractor-trolley and died on the spot, in the said accident. At that time he was aged about 15 years and was the only son of Gendalal, who also died subsequently as a natural death. The claimant sunderbai is the widow of late Gendalal and the mother of deceased Kailash. The tribunal has awarded a compensation of rs. 50,000 against the owner of the tractor and has exonerated the insurance company on the ground of breach of policy and has also not awarded any interest. The Claims tribunal rejected the evidence of PW 1 sunderbai to the effect that the deceased boy was working as labourer and was earning Rs. 3,000 to Rs. 5,000 per month. It is also not in dispute that accident took place on 18. 4. 1988 and the claim petition" was filed on 28. 7. 1989 and thereafter it remained pending before the Tribunal till passing of final award on 15. 4. 1999.

( 3 ) EXH. P-l is the copy of F. I. R. , Exh. P-2 is the certified copy of spot map and exh. P-3 is copy of challan paper. Though nothing has been mentioned in the F. I. R. about carrying of 'baraat' in the trolley but in the petition the claimant himself has stated that at the time of accident tractor was carrying 'baraat' though in the W. S. the owner has denied this fact. The insurance company has also stated that at the time of accident the 'baraat was sitting in the tractor-trolley and a specific objection was taken about the non-liability of the insurance company in view of breach of terms and conditions of the policy. PW 2 devisingh, the sole eyewitness of the spot has also admitted this fact in his cross-examination that at the time of accident the tractor and trolley was used for carrying 'baraat'. The insurance company has also examined DW 1 Mohd. Zahir Khan on the ground of breach of policy, but there is no dispute that the deceased cyclist was third party and was not travelling in the trolley.

( 4 ) THOUGH the owner and driver of the tractor-trolley, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have filed their W. S. and denied the fact of carrying 'baraat', but after filing of the w. S. the owner has neither examined himself nor produced any evidence that the tractor was not used for the purposes of carrying 'baraat' at the time of accident. The Tribunal has exonerated the insurance company on the ground of breach of terms and conditions of the policy.

( 5 ) I have perused the pleadings and evidence on record. From the evidence on record it is clear that the deceased cyclist was third party. Chapter XI of the Motor vehicles Act, 1988 contains provision for insurance of motor vehicle against third party risk. Section 146 of the Act imposes a prohibition against use of motor vehicle in a public place unless the vehicle is covered by a policy or insurance though some categories of vehicles are exempted from aforesaid compulsion but that question is not involved in this case. The object of section 146 of the Motor Vehicles Act is to provide statutory protection to a third party in respect of death or bodily injury or damages to their property while using the vehicl






Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top