An insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation share of a third-party vehicle owner and recover it from them in the absence of a contract of insurance (privity of contract) between the insurer and that vehicle owner.

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01.02.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO.86/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-VI, JAMAKHANDI, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.2,33,667/- WITH INTEREST AT 7.5 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALIZATION.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI)

1. The appellant-United India Insurance Company filed this appeal challenging the judgment and award dated 01.02.2021 passed in MVC No.86/2017 by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT-VI, Jamakhandi.

2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows:

3. On 06.02.2014 one Yalagonda who was pillion rider on the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-48/L-1761 ridden by one Siddappa Biradar in a rash and negligent manner dashed to the uninsured tractor-trailer bearing registration No.KA.29/TA-5348 belonging to the 3rd respondent and caused the accident.. The said Yalagonda succumbed to the injuries during treatment on 14.07.2014. The respondent Nos.1 and 2/claimants being the legal representatives of the deceased filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation on account of death of Yalagonda in the road traffic accident. Accordingly, prays to allow the claim petition.

4. The owner of the tractor-trailer through appeared did not file written statement.

5. HDFC-insurance company of the trailer filed the written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition, and contended that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the tractor trailer in parking the same. The accident occurred due to the sole negligence of the rider, who rode the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner, lost control and caused the accident. Further, contended that the driver of the trailer was not holding a valid driving license as on the date of accident and there is violation of the policy conditions. Further, it is contended that that the trailer was not insured with the second respondent as of the date of the accident and there is no privity of contract between the owner of the trailer and HDFC. Hence, the HDFC is not liable to pay the compensation as claimed by respondent Nos.1 and 2/claimants. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against the HDFC.

6. The owner of the motorcycle filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition. He contended that the motorcycle was duly insured with the United India Insurance Company and the policy was in force as of the date of the accident and the liability, if any, is to be indemnified by the insurer. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

7. The United India Insurance Company filed a statement of objections contending the owner of the motorcycle and the complainant colluding together got filed a criminal case to obtain a wrongful gain, and denied the averments made in the claim petition and accordingly prays to dismiss the claim petition against the United India.

8. The Tribunal based on the rival pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues.

9. The claimants in order to substantiate their claim petition, examined claimant No.3 before the Tribunal as PW.1 and marked 11 documents as Exs.P-1 to P-11 and also examined the Doctor as CW.1. In rebuttal, the HDFC Insurance Company ex