Back
2018 Supreme(Tri) 186
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA, AGARTALA
S. TALAPATRA, J.
The National Insurance Company Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Smt. Prabha Rani Debbarma, wife of Kala Debbarma - Respondent
MAC App. No.18 of 2017
Decided On : 02-07-2018
For the Appellants :Mr. S. Debnath, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. R. Datta, Advocate.
The insurance company's liability for compensating accident victims is limited to the number of persons covered by the insurance policy, and any excess amount can be recovered from the vehicle owner under Section 174 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act - Liability of Insurance Company - Section 173 - 279/427/337/338/304(a) of the IPC - 174 of the Motor Vehicles Act
Fact of the Case:
The appellant contested the liability of the insurance company to indemnify the damage for all passengers involved in an accident, arguing that the company's liability should be restricted to the vehicle's capacity of 38 passengers and the driver. The respondent No.1 claimed compensation for injuries sustained in the accident.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the insurance company's liability was limited to the first 39 major awards, and it could recover any additional amount from the owner under Section 174 of the Motor Vehicles Act without instituting a suit.
Issues: The main issue was the extent of the insurance company's liability for compensating the victims of the accident.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the insurance company's liability was limited to the highest awards for the first 39 passengers covered by the insurance policy. Any additional awards could be recovered from the vehicle owner under Section 174 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the court affirmed that the insurance company's liability was limited to the first 39 major awards, with the option to recover any additional amount from the owner under Section 174 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
S. TALAPATRA, J.
Heard Mr. S. Debnath, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. R. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (In short, MV Act) from the judgment and award dated 24.08.2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Tripura, Agartala in Case No.TS(MAC) No.442 of 2012.
3. The main ground of objection raised in this appeal is as to the liability of the appellant in making payment of the awarded compensation. According to the appellant the vehicle which met the accident was having capacity of 38 passengers on the date of accident. But from the first information report being Khliehriat PS Case No.130(a) of 2012 under Section 279/427/337/338/304(a) of the IPC, it would be apparent that according to the informant 28 passengers died in the spot and 27 passengers including the driver sustained injuries on their person. Thus, there were 54 passengers in the said vehicle bearing registration No.AS-01-Y-7379 (Bus) at the time of accident.
4. Insurance Company cannot be made liable for indemnifying the damage in respect of all the passengers. Their liability should be restricted to only 38 passengers and the workmen including the driver in the said vehicle. But the Tribunal while passing the said judgment has completely ignored that aspect of the matter and mechanically saddled the liability of payment of the award expressly on the appellant-insurance company in respect of all the claim petitions. The insurance company is not liable to indemnify the damage in respect of all the passengers as the consequence of the said judgment.
5. The respondent No.1 received serious injuries on her head, chest and other parts of the body and incurred a substantial sum of amount for her treatment. For the injury, according to her, she lost her job in a private enterprise. In support of medical expenses, a lot of documents have been admitted in the evidence and finally after her deposition being recorded, the Tribunal has observed that the respondent No.1 (the claimant) is entitled to the compensation to the extent of Rs.37,940/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim application i.e. 05.10.2012 till realization. It has been further directed that the appellant shall be liable to pay the said compensation. After appreciating the deposition of OPW-1 (the witness as adduced by the appellant in the Tribunal) the Tribunal has observed as under:
“It now requires decision as to who shall be liable to pay the compensation. Documents of the offending bus filed by the OP no.2 reveals that on the date of the accident, the bus had valid registration number and it was under the insurance coverage of the National Insurance Company Ltd., Agartala. Further, copy of the driving license filed reveals that the bus was driven by its driver holding a valid driving license. So, the liability is supposed to be shifted upon the Insurance Company.
But, before drawing the conclusion, deposition of OPW1 on the point is required to be looked into. He has deposed that the charge sheet reveals that the accident was caused due to overloading of the passengers in that, 30 passengers died on the spot and 26 passengers were injured which is beyond the seat capacity of the vehicle. So, as there was violation of the condition of the policy, the Insurance Company will not be liable to pay any compensation. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance company has also argued on the point.
Cross examination of the OPW.1 however reveals that so far, the company has received thirty two claims and that as per the policy, the passenger capacity of the vehicle was thirty eight. It is thus evident that the instant claim is well within the policy coverage of the vehicle. The liability of the award thus shifts upon the National Insurance Company.”
6. Mr. S. Debnath, learned counsel at the outset has submitted that another appeal out of the same
