Back
2012 Supreme(MP) 775
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT INDORE BENCH
S.K.Seth, J.
Prakashi Bai - Appellant
Versus
Bherulal and Another - Respondent
Misc. Appeal No. 3221 of 2007
Decided On : 27-03-2012
For appellants : J. Vaishnav
For Insurance Company : S.V. Dandwate
The insurance policy under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act only covers third-party risks and does not extend to the risk of a pillion rider.
Headnote:
Insurance - Motor Vehicles Act - Interpretation of Section 147 - Liability of Insurance Company
Fact of the Case:
The claimant and her husband were involved in a motor vehicle accident caused by an unknown vehicle. The claimant sought compensation from the insurance company of her husband's motor-cycle as a pillion rider, but the claim was dismissed by the Claims Tribunal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the insurance policy only covered third-party risks and did not extend to the risk of a pillion rider. The court concluded that the claimant could not maintain the claim petition against her husband and the insurance company, and therefore dismissed the appeal.
Issues: The issues were whether the claimant, as a pillion rider, could be considered a third party under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, and whether the Claims Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which mandates insurance against third-party risk. It held that the insurance policy only covered the death or bodily injury of a third person and did not extend to the risk of a pillion rider.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the claimant's petition against her husband and the insurance company was not upheld.
What is the interpretation of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act in relation to pillion riders being covered as third parties?
What is the liability of an insurance company under an Act policy when the claimant is a pillion rider on a motorcycle?
What are the grounds on which the Claims Tribunal’s dismissal of a claim petition by a pillion rider can be upheld or overturned?
Claimant is in appeal against the award dated 29-9-2007. By the impugned award her claim petition has been dismissed.
2. She filed the claim petition claiming total compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/-on allegation that on 21-2-2006 she and her husband were coming to, Indore on their Motor-Cycle when an unknown Jeep dashed against their Motor-Cycle causing severe injuries to claimant and her husband. Accident was reported in the Police Station Depalpur but the Police could not trace either the owner or the driver of the offending vehicle. At the time of accident appellant was travelling as a pillion rider on her husband's Motor-Cycle which was insured with the respondent No. 2. Since the offending Vehicle was unknown, therefore, claimant preferred claim petitions under section 163-A against her husband and the insurance company of his own Motor-Cycle the respondent No. 2.
3. Insurance Company denied its liability to pay any amount of compensation in view of statutory provisions. It claimed that in terms of statutory policy, it was required to indemnify the owner only against the third party claims. Since appellant was travelling as pillion rider on the Motor-Cycle therefore her risk was not covered by the Act Policy.
4. Learned Claims Tribunal found that appellant met with an accident caused by unknown vehicle but dismissed the claim petition holding that appellant was not a third party and as such was not entitled to receive any compensation from the respondent No. 2. Insurance Company (of Motor-Cycle) because appellant was travelling on the Motor-Cycle as pillion rider and the insurance policy did not cover risk of death or bodily injury to such pillion rider. In support of this conclusion Tribunal relied upon United India Insurance Company vs. Tilak Singh, 2006 ACJ 1441.
5. The questions that arise for our consideration are whether Claims Tribunal committed illegality in dismissing the claim of the appellant and whether the pillion-rider on a two wheeler would be a third party within the meaning of section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
6. Provisions relating to grant of compensation occurring in Chapters XI and XII of the Act have been enacted by Parliament in order to achieve the purpose and object stated therein. Section 146 of the Act lays down the requirements for insurance against third-party risk. Where a third-party risk is involved, an insurance policy is required to be mandatorily taken out. The requirements of policies and the limits of liability, however, have been stated in section 147 of the Act.
7. Perusal of provisions shows for two types of insurance - one statutory in nature and the other contractual in nature. Under the "Act Policy" the insurance company is bound to compensate the owner of the motor vehicle in case any third party dies or suffers injury as a result of an accident. By taking an "Act policy", the owner of a vehicle fulfils his statutory obligation as contained in section 147 of the Act.
8. In the case in hand, Insurance Company led evidence to prove the Certificate of Insurance (Ex.D.1) From the Certificate Ex.D.1 it is quite clear that the contract of insurance was entered into for the purpose of covering the third-party risk and not the risk a pillion-rider. Undoubtedly, appellant was travelling as a pillion rider; stricto sensu may not be as a gratuitous passenger. In the sense of the term which is used in common parlance, she might not even be a passenger. In view of the terms of the contract of insurance, however, she would not be covered thereby. The compulsory coverage is only against the death of or bodily injury to "any third person". We are of the opinion that as the provisions thereof do not enjoin any statutory liability on the owner of a vehicle to get his vehicle insured for pillion rider, the insurers would not be liable therefor. Section 147 speaks of liability which may be incurred by the owner of a vehicle in respect of death of or bodily injury to any person or damage
