Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA, AGARTALA
S. TALAPATRA, J.
The New India Assurance Company Limited – Appellant
Versus
Smti. Arati Das, wife of late Ajit Das and Others – Respondents
MAC APPL NO. 16 OF 2014
Decided On : 09-03-2017
Motor Vehicles Act - Compensation Claim - Section 163A - [DEATH OF OWNER AND DRIVER] - [Section 163A] - The court discussed the provisions of Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, which provides for compensation in case of death or permanent disablement due to accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle. The court analyzed the insurance policy and its coverage, the liability of the insurer, and the maintainability of the claim petition under Section 163A. The court also considered previous judgments related to insurance coverage for the owner-cum-driver and the interpretation of package policies. The court emphasized the distinction between statutory and contractual policies and the scope of liability under Section 163A. The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the law and the specific circumstances of the case.
Fact of the Case:
The claimant-respondents filed a claim petition under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicle Act for compensation for the death of the owner and driver of a vehicle involved in an accident. The appellant, an insurance company, objected to the claim, arguing that the accident occurred due to negligent driving of the deceased and that the claim was not maintainable under Section 163A. The court examined the circumstances of the accident, the insurance coverage, and the liability of the insurer.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the claimants were entitled to compensation under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, as the accident did not result from negligence of the owner-cum-driver. The court emphasized the coverage provided by the insurance policy and the distinction between statutory and contractual policies. The court held that the insurer was liable to pay the compensation as ascertained by the tribunal, excluding the penal interest imposed. The court directed the insurer to make the payment within a specified timeframe.
Issues: The main issues before the court were whether the claimants were entitled to compensation under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act for the death of the owner-cum-driver, and the scope of liability of the insurer under the insurance policy. The court also considered the maintainability of the claim petition and the applicability of previous judgments related to insurance coverage.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the terms of the insurance policy, and the specific circumstances of the accident. The court emphasized the distinction between statutory and contractual policies, and the scope of liability under Section 163A. The court's decision was also influenced by previous judgments related to insurance coverage for the owner-cum-driver and the interpretation of package policies.
Final Decision: The court held that the claimants were entitled to compensation under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, and directed the insurer to pay the compensation amount as ascertained by the tribunal, excluding the penal interest imposed. The court specified a timeframe for the payment and clarified that the order for payment would not create a precedent in any way.
This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act from the judgment and award dated 25.11.2013 delivered in T.S.(MAC) 240 of 2011 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Tripura, Agartala.
2. By means of this appeal, the appellant, New India Assurance Company Limited has raised a solitary ground of objection that the claimant-respondents, for death of the owner and driver of the vehicle No.TR-01-J-1579 (G.C. Max) namely Ajit Das are not entitled to get any compensation by virtue of the Insurance Policy.
3. The facts relating to the accident are not in dispute. Ajit Das, the victim while driving his vehicle bearing registration No.TR-01-J-1579 from Lembucherra Bazar to his destination at Bamutia, he met an accident and received serious injuries. He was immediately shifted to the GBP hospital and he was declared dead by the attending Medical Officer. The legal heirs of Ajit Das, since deceased, filed a claim petition under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicle Act for compensation for the death of Ajit Das, in the said accident that occurred on 27.04.2011 at a place near Lembucherra. According to the claimant-respondents, Ajit Das died at the age of 40(forty) years having his monthly income at Rs.3,000/-. As such they claimed a sum of Rs.12,75,000/- under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicle Act. It surfaces from the records that by the order dated 10.05.2013, the claim petition was amended reducing the monthly income of the deceased to Rs.3,000/from 10,000/-., it appears that in order to sustain the application under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 the said amendment was carried out. The tribunal should have been liberal allowing the claimant-respondents to carry out such amendment. However, even in the appeal no challenge has been projected to question such amendment.
4. The appellant filed the written statement in the tribunal and denied that the said accident occurred while attempting to save a stray dog. Mr. A. Gon Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has emphatically submitted that the accident took place for negligent driving of the deceased. The story that in order to save a stray dog the said vehicle met the accident is not believable inasmuch as one of the claimants namely Chanu Das, the claimant-respondent No.2 lodged the FIR on 27.04.2011 where the episode of accident in order to saving the stray dog did not find a place in the ejhar dated 27.04.2011 [in Exbt.1 series] and he has merely stated that the said vehicle fell in accident as it rolled down to a lowland along with the road and in the said accident, his father died.
5. Mr. Gon Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has fairly submitted that the vehicle was under valid insurance cover, but since the accident occurred for negligent driving of the deceased he can neither get compensation under Section 163A nor have it under Section 166 of the IPC. Section 163A of the MV Act provides as under:
“163A. Special provisions as to payment of compensation on structured formula basis.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force or instrument having the force of law, the owner of the motor vehicle or the authorised insurer shall be liable to pay in the case of death or permanent disablement due to accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle, compensation, as indicated in the Second Schedule, to the legal heirs or the victim, as the case may be.”
Explanation. For the purposes of this subsection, “permanent disability” shall have the same meaning and extent as in the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923).
(2) In any claim for compensation under subsection (1), the claimant shall not be required to plead or establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other person.
(3) The Central Governme
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
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
