Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(GUJ) 25684
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI, J
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. BHAVNAGAR – Appellant
Versus
MOHAMADKHA MOHABATKHA PATHAN – Respondent
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1426 of 2018
MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI(513) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR V A ZALA(11441) for the Defendant(s) No. 2,3,4
The claim petition remains valid against the insurer despite the owner's death during proceedings, as per Section 155 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 155 - Claim petition maintainability - The tribunal's judgment against the deceased vehicle owner is valid despite the owner's death during proceedings, as the insurance policy remains effective and the claim can proceed against the insurer. (Paras 3, 4, 5, 6)
(B) Legal heirs - The absence of legal heirs in the claim petition does not invalidate the proceedings against the insurer, as the claim survives against the estate of the deceased owner. (Paras 5, 6)
Facts of the case:
The appellant insurance company contended that the tribunal's award against the deceased vehicle owner was a nullity due to the owner's death during the claim process, arguing that heirs were not joined. The claimant argued that the insurance policy was valid at the time of the accident, allowing recovery from the estate.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the claim petition is maintainable despite the owner's death, as per Section 155 of the MV Act, allowing claims against the insurer.
Issues: The main issue was whether the claim petition could proceed against the insurer despite the owner's death and absence of legal heirs.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that Section 155 of the MV Act allows claims to survive against the estate of the deceased owner and the insurer, regardless of the owner's death during proceedings.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
ORAL JUDGMENT
The seminal contention raised by learned advocate Mr.Nanavati for the appellant – insurance company that the tribunal passed the judgment and award against the dead person as the owner of the vehicle – opponent no.1 died during the pendency of the claim petition as per Exh.49 and Exh.50. He would further submit that heirs of the deceased – owner are not brought on record and in view of that aspect judgment and award passed against the dead person is nullity and a such cannot be held legal an valid. Above submissions is made by learned advocate for the appellant to allow this appeal.
2. On the other hand learned advocate Mr.Zala for the claimant would submit that tribunal has not committed any error in passing the judgment and award as the valid and effective insurance policy was in existence on the date of the accident covering the risk of the offending vehicle. He would further submit that the contract of the policy has to be treated as an estate of the deceased owner and therefore amount of compensation can be recovered from the estate of the deceased in such a way the insurance company cannot contend that owner of the vehicle since deceased during the pendency of the claim petition would absolve the liability of the insurance company to pay the compensation.
3. Apt to note that apart from above contentions no other contentions has been raised by the appellant. Sole contention of the insurance company is that view of Exh.49 and Exh.50 since the owner of the offending vehicle expired during the trial without being joined his legal heirs and representatives passing of the judgment and award would be against the dead person and as such is nullity. In view of the said submissions, first let refer to Section 155 of the MV Act.
" 155. Effect of death on certain causes of action.- Notwithstanding anything contained in section 306 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (39 of 1925), the death of a person in whose favour a certificate of insurance had been issued, if it occurs after the happening of an event which has given rise to a claim under the provisions of this Chapter, shall not be a bar to the survival of any cause of action arising out of the said event against his estate or against the insurer. "
4. Clear interpretation of Section 155 would be that if a person in whose favour a certificate of insurance has been issued, died subsequent to happening of an event, which has given rise to the claim under the MV Act, shall not be a bar to the survival of any cause of action arising out of the said event against the estate of against the insurer. If the owner if expired subsequent to the road accident which has given rise to the claim petition and if a valid certificate of insurance exists in favour of the owner the claim petition would be decided against the insurer.
5. Issue arose for considering before the Division Bench of Karnataka High Court in case the case of New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. H. Siddalinga Naika & Ors., 1985 ACJ 1989 where the Division Bench have not considered the effect of Section 155 of the MV Act while negating the contention of the insurance company that the claim petition would not survive if the legal representative of the owner are not brought on record and observed thus:
" There is no substance contention SO in the raised because section 102, Motor Vehicles Act, states: "Notwithstanding contained in anything 306, section Succession Act, 1925, the death of person in whose favour a certificate of insurance had been issued, if it occurs after the happening of an event which has given rise to a claim under the provisions of this Chapter, shall not be a bar to the survival of any cause of action arising out of the said event against his estate or against the insurer."
In this case, the claim petition was filed already before the Tribunal and insurance company had issued the policy. That being so, the fact that the lorry dies, makes owner of the no difference. The Tribunal has rightly passed award
