Point of Law :
statutory liability of Insurer under the Act is only for indemnifying insured against third party or in respect of damages to property, but cannot be extended to insured. - when no additional premium paid by owner of the vehicle so as to cover any risk for death or bodily injury to the owner and that the owner himself was driving the vehicle which due to his negligence dashed with a tree on the roadside as a result of which he died, claim petition under the provisions of the Act is not maintainable. It was further held that Sections 147 (1) (b) of the Act covers only third party risk

JUDGMENT:

Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 09.12.2004 in O.P. No.1285 of 2001 passed by the III Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Warangal (for short ‘the Tribunal’), the appellant - Insurer - M/s. New India Insurance Company Limited preferred the present appeal challenging the liability as well as quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

2. Vide the aforesaid judgment, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.3,31,000/- (Rupees three lakhs and thirty one thousand only) towards compensation with proportionate costs and interest at 9% per annum thereon from the date of petition till the date of realization. The Tribunal directed the appellant - Insurer to deposit the compensation amount.

3. Heard Mr. P. Harinath Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. A. Ravinder, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2. However, the appeal against respondent Nos.3 to 6 was dismissed for default by order, dated 27.04.2016.

4. It is the specific contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that as per Exs.A1 - FIR, A5 - charge sheet and deposition of PW.2, an eye-witness, on 21.02.2001 at about 10.30 a.m., deceased - Sangeraboina Ravi was proceeding on Hero Honda Motorcycle bearing registration No.AP 36G 4907 as pillion, driven by respondent No.1 belonging to respondent No.2 towards Annaram village. When they reached near Nakkalapalli village, a jeep was coming from opposite direction. In order to avoid accident, respondent No.1 took diversion in a negligent manner and dashed a Telephone Pole. Due to which, both of them fell down. The deceased died on the spot while respondent No.1 sustained injuries.

5. By referring the said facts supported by Exs.A1 - FIR and A5 - charge sheet and also the evidence of PW.2, the learned counsel for the appellant - Insurer would contend that the deceased died due to the negligence of the rider of the motorcycle and, therefore, the claimants being legal representatives of the deceased cannot invoke the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’). He would further contend that the deceased was not a third party as per the provisions of the Act and the claimants are not entitled for the compensation under the contract of Insurer. He would also contend that the Tribunal without appreciating the contention of the appellant that the deceased was not a third party and that the claimants are not entitled for compensation, has awarded the compensation as mentioned supra directing the appellant herein to deposit the same.

6. In support of above contentions, the learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the principle held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sadanad Mukhi, 2009 ACJ 998, Dhanraj v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2004) 8 SCC 553 and United India Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Sunanda, 2007 ACJ 1715 and contends that in all the said decisions, the deceased died or person injured in the accident due to his own fault and that the legal heirs/injured are not entitled for compensation under the provisions of the Act.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant - Insurer would also contend that as per Ex.B2 - insurance policy and Ex.A6 - cover note, there is no coverage to the risk of owner/driver and pillion of the vehicle involved in the accident. According to him, the claimants did not produce contra evidence to disprove the contention of the Insurer. The Tribunal without appreciating Ex.B2 - insurance policy and Ex.A6 - cover note, held that the driver-victim of the crime vehicle is responsible for causing accident and that there is no need for proof of negligence under Section 163-A of the Act, the owner is vicariously liable to pay the compensation. It is also held by the Tribunal that respondent No.6 herein, owner, has insured the crime vehicle with the appellant - Insurer vide Exs.A6 - cover note and Ex.B2 - insurance policy and, therefore, the appellant is bound to indemnify the liability. According to him, in order to utili