A claim under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act is not maintainable for the death of a driver caused by their own negligence, as the section is based on fault liability. Insurer liability is limited to contractual personal accident benefits where no other vehicle is involved.

JUDGMENT :

NISHA M. THAKORE, J.

1. The present appeal is filed at the instance of the Insurance Company- original opponent No.2 under section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 , being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 19th February 2015 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (Main), Rajpipla, in MACP No.196 of 2013. By the said judgment and award, the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition preferred by the original claimants under Section 166 of the Act, 1988, holding them entitled to recovery of a sum of Rs.9,45,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of filing of the claim petition till its actual realization, from the original opponents jointly and severally, with proportionate costs.

2. Considering the grounds raised in the appeal and the submissions made by the learned advocate appearing for the appellant- Insurance Company, this Court vide order dated 6th July 2015, had admitted the appeal. In an interim application for stay, conditional order of stay against the impugned judgment and award was granted subject to the deposit of the entire amount before the Tribunal. Further directions were issued with regard to the disbursement of 20% of such deposited amount in favour of the original claimants, whereas 80% of the amount was directed to be invested in long-term fixed deposits in any nationalized bank, which was directed to be renewed pending the hearing of the appeal.

3. Learned advocate Mr. M.T.M. Hakim has entered appearance on behalf of the original claimants- respondent nos.1.1 to 1.3. Learned advocate Mr. Keval Patel has appeared on behalf of Mr. Jigar R Gadhvi, learned advocate on record for respondent No.2- owner of the vehicle involved in the accident. With the able assistance of learned advocates on record, the appeal was finally heard.

4. Learned advocate Mr. Rushang Mehta, appearing for the appellant- Insurance Company at the outset, learned advocate has invited my attention to the finding and reasons assigned by the Tribunal as well as the written arguments submitted by the Insurance Company at Exhibit 52. He has invited my attention to the manner in which the accident was reported. It was submitted that the deceased- Yogeshbhai Mansingh, was in charge of the insured vehicle (tractor) as a driver, who lost control over the vehicle, and it turned turtle. As a result of which, the driver of the vehicle as well as the occupant on the tractor, namely Arunbhai Vasava, had sustained grievous injuries and unfortunately succumbed to death. It was further submitted that the accident had occurred due to the sole negligence of the deceased who was in charge of the insured vehicle as the driver. He has further submitted that deceased was not a third party with respect to insured vehicle. In such circumstances, the deceased himself being the tortfeasor, is not entitled to any compensation under Section 166 of the Act, 1988. Inviting my attention to the schedule of the premium paid as reflected in the policy produced on record at Exhibit 40, it was submitted that the basic premium including the premium for third-party property damage, was restricted to the statutory limit. Considering the facts of the case, the deceased cannot be treated as a third party so as to hold the appellant insurance company liable to pay any amount of compensation under the aforesaid head.