Back
1999 Supreme(MP) 938
S.B. Sakrikar, J.
Madhusudan And Anr.
vs
Smt. Premkunwar And Ors.
DECIDED ON : 14 December, 1999
An insurance company is liable to pay compensation for the death of a pillion passenger if the conditions of the policy cover the risk of a pillion passenger traveling on the motorcycle.
Headnote:
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 - SECTION 149 - INSURANCE - LIABILITY OF INSURANCE COMPANY - CONDITIONS OF POLICY - ADMISSION BY INSURANCE COMPANY - LIABILITY TO PAY COMPENSATION
Fact of the Case:
A fatal accident occurred involving a motorcycle, resulting in the death of the pillion passenger, Chintaman. Two claim petitions were filed by different sets of claimants, one by Premkunwarbai and her children, and the other by Shantabai and her children, both claiming to be the wife and children of the deceased. The Tribunal awarded compensation to Premkunwarbai and her children, exonerating the insurance company from liability.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the insurance company had admitted in its reply to an application filed by the appellants that the conditions of the policy covered the risk of a pillion passenger traveling on the motorcycle. Therefore, the insurance company was also liable to pay compensation for the death of Chintaman.
Issues: 1. Whether the insurance company was liable to pay compensation for the death of the pillion passenger, Chintaman, under the conditions of the policy. 2. Whether the cross-objection filed by Shantabai and her children challenging the dismissal of their claim petition was maintainable.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the insurance company was liable to pay compensation because it had admitted that the conditions of the policy covered the risk of a pillion passenger traveling on the motorcycle. The court also held that the cross-objection filed by Shantabai and her children was not maintainable because they had no locus standi to challenge the award and compensation passed in favor of Premkunwarbai and her children.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the appeal filed by the appellants, modifying the impugned award to hold the insurance company jointly and severally liable with the appellants for the payment of compensation to Premkunwarbai and her children. The cross-objection filed by Shantabai and her children was dismissed.
S.B. Sakrikar, J.
1. Appellants (owner and driver of the defending vehicle) have directed this appeal against the common award dated 30.11.1996 passed by the Additional M.A.C.T., Khargone in Claim Case Nos. 51/88 and 12/92 thereby allowing the application filed by Premkunwarbai and others and awarding compensation of Rs. 78,000/- together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit till realisation of the amount.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 24.6.1988 appellant No. 1, as a result of rash and negligent driving of Rajdoot motor cycle bearing registration No. CII 2228 met with an accident resulting into death of one Chintaman, travelling on the rear seat of the same motor cycle. Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and 6 to 11 separately filed two claim petitions against the appellants and respondent No. 12 on the averment that Smt. Premkunwarbai is the legally wedded wife of the deceased Chintaman and respondent Nos. 2 to 5 are her children whereas respondent No. 6 Shantabai also alleged that she is the wife of deceased Chintaman and respondent Nos. 7 to 11 are her children. Learned Tribunal rejected the claim filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 6 to 11 and allowed the claim petition filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and awarded compensation in their favour by the impugned award as indicated above.
3. Learned Tribunal while passing the award exonerated the respondent No. 12, Insurance Company from the payment of compensation to the claimants. Aggrieved, the appellants have filed this appeal against the award of the Tribunal exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability of payment of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal.
4. On service of notice to respondent Nos. 6 to 11 they have filed cross-objection challenging dismissal of the claim petition filed by the said respondents. The said cross-objection was challenged on behalf of respondent No. 12 on the ground that they have no locus standi to file cross-objection in the appeal filed by the appellants (defendants) against the co-defendants i.e. Insurance Company for holding Insurance Company also liable to pay the compensation amount.
5. During the course of arguments learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants do not want to challenge the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the only contention of the Counsel for the appellants is that in view of the conditions of the insurance policy and the admissions made on behalf of respondent No. 12 the Insurance Company may also be held liable to pay compensation to the claimants as awarded by the Tribunal.
6. As against this, the Counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that as the appellants are not challenging the quantum of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal, the cross-objection filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 6 to 11 rejecting their claim, is not maintainable, as it is only a, dispute between co-defendants on the point of liability of payment of compensation amount.
7. Considering the submissions of the Counsel and in view of the facts of the case, in my opinion, in this appeal the appellants, who are the defendants in the original claim case have made a prayer only against co-defendants i.e. Insurance 'Company holding him liable for the payment of the compensation amount as awarded by the Tribunal. Respondent Nos. 6 to 11 who are original claimants of Claim Case No. 51/88 have no locus standi to file cross-objection challenging the award and compensation passed in favour of respondents No. 1 to 5 original claimants of Claim Case No. 12/92. Even otherwise, no one appeared in this Court on behalf of respondent Nos. 6 to 11 to prosecute cross-objection filed on their behalf, as such I allow IA No. 4921/99 filed on behalf of respondent No. 12 and dismiss the cross-objection filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 6 to 11.
8. On the point of holding the Insurance Company liable to pay compensation, on perusal of record, it emerged that in reply to IA No.
