Judgment / Order

REPORTABLE 07/01/2025

1. These two civil misc. appeals were filed aggrieved and dissatisfied from award dated 06.07.2010 in MAC No.62/2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Sawai Madhopur (hereinafter referred to as “MACT”) in a petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “M.V. Act”).

2. S.B. CMA No.2270/2010 is filed by Insurance Company of Truck No.GJ-10-V-6204 on the ground to challenge findings on negligence with prayer for exoneration of driver, owner and insurer of Truck No.GJ-10-V-6204 from liability of payment of compensation.

3. S.B. CMA No.3238/2010 is filed by claimants-appellants dissatisfied from award on several counts and also modification in award to fasten liability upon Insurance Company of Car No.GJ-

10-AC-0263 (MH-12-0789) to make payment (indemnify) of award.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant New India Insurance Company, while relying upon judgment in case of The Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs Meena Variyal & Ors. reported in (2007) 5 SCC 428 submitted that deceased Bharat Singh was an employee of M/s. Tata Chemical Limited and he was traveling in Indica Car and due to rash and negligent driving of car driver, this car had collided from rear side of truck insured with appellant-Insurance Company. He submitted that the truck driver took all due care before parking on road side after break down of a vehicle but due to driving in rash and negligent manner by driver of Indica Car, it smashed into the stationary truck from rear side, and resulted into death of Bharat Singh. He referred the findings of learned Tribunal and submitted that a criminal case was registered against the car driver and after investigation police has filed a charge-sheet against the Indica car driver (AW2) and no role or involvement of driver related with appellant-Insurance Company was found during investigation. He further submitted that learned Tribunal has not only drawn an erroneous conclusion against the record but also fastened 50% of liability upon Insurance Company of truck, which is contrary to settled principle of law. He also submitted that the deceased was a Senior Manager in Tata Chemical Limited (registered owner) and he falls within the definition of owner, therefore, he is not a third party and his legal heirs cannot institute a claim against driver, owner and insurer of Truck No. GJ-10-V-6204.

5. Aforesaid contentions were further supported by respondent- Insurance Company of Indica Car while relying upon judgment in case of The Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs Meena Variyal & Ors. (supra) and submitted that as per IMT, deceased was representative (employee) of owner, therefore, he falls within the definition of owner and cannot be termed as 3^rd party. He further referred the findings and submitted that the Insurance Company was rightly exonerated by learned Tribunal.

6. Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of M/s. Tata Chemical Limited (owner of Indica Car) while relying upon judgment in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs Balakrishnan & Anr. reported in (2013) 1 SCC 731 submitted that after considering the provision of Sections 146, 147(1) and 166 of MV Act, and also circulars of IRDA dated 16.11.2009 and 03.12.2009, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that owner or passenger traveling as a passenger (other than driver) and, if meeting with any incident then Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation in case of comprehensive/package policy. He also referred “act only policy” and submitted that under the act only policy, an Insurance Company is not liable for injury or death of any occupant in any private car but herein the owner of Indica Car has purchased comprehensive/package policy and learned Tribunal without considering the legal position in light of circulars issued by IRDA has exonerated Insurance Company of Indica Car from indemnification of award. He also admitted that the owner of Indica Car has also challenged