Back
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
R. P. GUPTA
ASHOK - Appellant
Versus
NARMADA BAI - Respondents
M. A. 183 Of 1995
Decided On : 09/15/1998
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 - SEC. 147 - INSURANCE POLICY - LIABILITY OF INSURER - Pillion rider on a two-wheeler is an authorised rider as per section 128 of the Motor Vehicles Act. He would certainly be covered by 'any person' laid down in the above section and in the policy.
Fact of the Case:
A motor cycle accident resulted in the death of the pillion rider, Dinesh. The Tribunal awarded compensation to the mother of the deceased, respondent No. 1, against the appellant, the owner of the motor cycle, but not against the insurance company. The appellant challenged the award, contending that the insurance company should have been held liable and that the amount awarded was excessive.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the insurance policy in question was comprehensive and covered the liability to public risk. It also found that the pillion rider was an authorised rider as per section 128 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and was therefore covered by the policy.
Issues: 1. Whether the insurance company was liable to pay the damages to the claimants? 2. Whether the amount awarded by the Tribunal was excessive?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the insurance company was liable to pay the damages to the claimants because the policy was comprehensive and covered the liability to public risk, and the pillion rider was an authorised rider covered by the policy. The court also held that the amount awarded by the Tribunal was not excessive.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the award of the Tribunal was amended to make the insurance company jointly liable with the appellant for the damages awarded to the respondent.
( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the award dated 6. 1. 1995 given by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, khandwa, whereby a sum of Rs. 57,600 was awarded in favour of respondent No. 1 as compensation for the death of her son dinesh, aged about 26 years against the appellant. The death occurred due to injuries suffered in a road accident wherein a motor cycle No. MP-12-1404 slipped and fell on the road. It was being driven by the owner Ashok and the deceased Dinesh was sitting on the pillion seat. Both of them suffered injuries but Dinesh died the next day. Claimant-respondent No. 1 is the mother of Dinesh. The compensation of rs. 57,600 was awarded in favour of respondent No. 1 against appellant No. 1 and not against the insurance company. The appellant has raised two-fold contentions: (1) that insurance company should have been made liable when it was found established that the motor cycle was insured comprehensively, and (2) that the amount awarded was excessive.
( 2 ) AFTER perusing the evidence available on the record of the Tribunal, I find that the assessment of the Tribunal that the deceased was earning Rs. 600 p. m. at least as an employee at private shop, was not at all excessive and was rather on the lower side. The Tribunal rejected the evidence that the deceased used to earn Rs. 600 p. m. extra by doing tailoring work. I find no infirmity in the conclusion of the Tribunal that the dependency of the mother who is a widow to the extent of Rs. 300 p. m. should be taken as established. The Tribunal thus found the dependency of Rs. 3,600 per year and used the multiplier of 16 to reach the figure of Rs. 57,600.
( 3 ) THE Tribunal had found that the vehicle was insured but on the basis of pronouncement of Punjab and Haryana High court in the case of Surjit Singh v. Santosh kumari, 1989 ACJ 466 (Pandh), held that the insurance company was not liable to pay the insurance claim.
( 4 ) THIS accident took place after the motor Vehicles Act, 1988 came into force. So those provisions would be attracted. Section 147 of this Act provides for requirements of policies and limits of liability in the following terms:"147. 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; and (b) insures the person or classes of persons specified in the policy to the extent specified in sub-section (2) (i) against any liability which may be incurred by him in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any person, including owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising put of the use of the vehicle in a public place; (ii) against the death of or bodily injury to any passenger of a public service vehicle caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place: provided that a policy shall not be required (2) Subject to the proviso to subsection (1), a policy of insurance referred to in sub-section (1), shall cover any liability incurred in respect of any accident, up to the following limits, namely (a) save as provided in clause (b), the amount of liability incurred; (b) in respect of damage to any property of a third party, a limit of rupees six thousand: (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, an insurer issuing a policy of insurance under this section shall be liable to indemnify the person or classes of persons specified in the policy in respect of any liability which the policy purports to cover in the case of that person or those classes of persons. "
( 5 ) SECTION 128 of the Motor Vehicles act, 1988 permits carrying of one person apart from driver on a two-seated motor cycle. So sitting on the pillion seat by dinesh while appellant Ashok was driving, was permissible in law. It is expected that the motor cycle could be used
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
