Back
2003 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 21
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Mandeep Pannu, J
Surinder Kaur – Appellant
Versus
Pillon – Respondent
FAO-877-2003
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sanjay Jain
For the Respondents: Pritam Singh Saini, Vamika Johar, Maninder Arora
A person who is either the owner or is driving the vehicle with the permission of the owner cannot be treated as a 'third party' under an insurance policy, and therefore, their legal heirs are not entitled to claim compensation for death under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 163-A - Death of driver/borrower of vehicle - Third party insurance - Liability of insurer - Deceased driving vehicle belonging to another with permission - Whether treated as third party - Held, person in control of vehicle or driving with permission of owner steps into shoes of owner and cannot be treated as third party, thus insurance company not liable to indemnify. (Paras 30, 31, 33)
(B) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 163-A - Murder during vehicle snatching - Whether accident arising out of use of motor vehicle - Held, murder committed in course of snatching or stealing a motor vehicle constitutes death arising out of use of motor vehicle, satisfying threshold for Section 163-A. (Paras 29, 32)
Facts of the case:
Appellants (legal heirs of deceased) sought compensation for death of Paramjit Singh who was murdered by unknown persons while they robbed him of the Maruti van he was driving. The Tribunal dismissed the claim, observing that deceased was in control of the vehicle and the policy was a third-party risk policy. Appellants appealed, contending the deceased was a third party as respondent no. 1 was the registered owner.
Findings of Court:
While the death arose out of the use of a motor vehicle, the deceased acted as a borrower/user of the vehicle with the owner's permission. Consequently, he stands in the position of the owner, falling outside the definition of a third party, and the insurance company is not liable.
Issues: Whether a murder resulting from vehicle theft qualifies as an accident under Section 163-A of the MVA, and whether a deceased driver, who is neither the registered owner nor a third party, is covered by a third-party insurance policy.
Ratio Decidendi: A person who borrows/drives a vehicle with the owner's permission occupies the position of the owner, thus cannot be classified as a 'third party' entitled to compensation under a standard third-party insurance policy, even if the death arose out of the use of the vehicle.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. establishing the facts of the occurrence and registering the incident correctly. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 2. murder during criminal vehicle theft qualifies as an accident arising from the use of a motor vehicle. (Para 13 , 14 , 29) |
| 3. borrower/driver of an insured vehicle occupies the status of the owner and is not a third party. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36) |
MANDEEP PANNU, J.
1. The present appeal has been filed by Surinder Kaur and other claimants, against the award dated 16.11.2002 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’)
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that Surinder Kaur, being the widow, Narender Singh, being the son, Sandeep Kaur, being the daughter, and Parkash Kaur, being the mother of Paramjit Singh, filed a claim petition on account of the death of Paramjit Singh in a motor vehicle accident.
3. It was alleged that on 17.05.1998, the deceased Paramjit Singh, while driving his Maruti van bearing registration number PB-12-A-6204, was proceeding from Ambala Cantt to Saharanpur. On the way, he gave lift to some unknown persons. Those unknown persons, with the intention of robbing the vehicle, committed the murder of Paramjit Singh.
4. It was submitted that the death of Paramjit Singh occurred on account of the use of a motor vehicle, and therefore, the claimants sought a compensation of ₹10,00,000/-. The deceased was stated to be about 46 years of age, engaged in business, and earning approximately ₹5,000/- per month. The vehicle in question was stated to be owned by respondent no. 1 and insured with respondent no. 2.
5. Upon notice, respondent no. 2 (insurance company) contested the petition by filing a written statement, raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability of the petition, locus standi, cause of action, misjoinder and non-joinder of necessary parties, and collusion between the claimants and respondent no. 1. It was further alleged that the said Maruti van was neither in the possession nor being driven by the deceased at the relevant time.
6. On merits, the income, age, occupation, and manner of death of the deceased were disputed, as well as the use of the motor vehicle in the incident. It was specifically denied that the van was being driven or was in possession of the deceased, or that unknown persons had murdered him with the intention of stealing the vehicle.
7. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:-
1. Whether the accident in question causing the death of Paramjit Singh had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of Maruti van No. PB-12-A-6204 by its driver, i.e., deceased Paramjit Singh? OPP
2. If issue no. 1 is proved, to what amount of compensation, if any, are the claimants entitled, and from which of the respondents? OPP
3. Whether the respondents are not liable to pay compensation due to the pleas taken up in the written statement? OPR
4. Relief.
8. In order to prove their case, the claimants examined Constable Harinder Malik (PW1), Taranjit Singh (PW2), and Smt. Surinder Kaur (PW3), who appeared as her own witness.
9. On the other hand, respondent no. 2 – the insurance company tendered in evidence a copy of the insurance policy (Exhibit R1).
10. Under issue no. 1, it has been held and observed by the learned Tribunal that, in order to prove that the death was on account of use of a motor vehicle, the claimants examined Constable Harinder Malik, besides appearing as her own witness. The version put forth is that while the deceased was proceeding in his own motor vehicle from Ambala Cantt to Saharanpur, some unknown persons caused the death of Paramjit Singh and threw his dead body in the area of Police Station Sarsawa, District Saharanpur. A case under Sections 302/201 IPC was registered regarding the occurrence vide report,
