The liability of an insurance company towards the owner-cum-rider of a vehicle under a compulsory Personal Accident (PA) cover is contractual and limited to the sum assured in the policy, rather than the full calculated loss of dependency.

JUDGMENT:

The present appeal is preferred by the appellant-Insurance Company, aggrieved by the order and decree dated 24.04.2015 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the impugned order’) passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal–cum– III Additional District Judge (FTC), Nizamabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.246 of 2009.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter shall be referred to as per their status before the learned Tribunal.

I. BRIEF FACTS

3. The brief facts of the case, as borne out from the record, are as under:

a) The petitioners/claimants, who are the wife, children and parents of the deceased by name R. Mallaiah, filed a claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 seeking compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- against the sole respondent/ Insurance Company, being the insurer of the motorcycle bearing Registration No. AP 25 Q 7994, for the death of the deceased in a road traffic accident.

b) It was the case of the claimants that on 10.09.2008 at about 8.30 PM, while the deceased was proceeding on his motorcycle towards Sikindrapur, and reached near Sampalli Crossroads, a Lorry came in opposite direction at a high speed caused a situation requiring evasive action. In the course of attempting to avoid a collision, the deceased lost control over his vehicle and fell into a roadside ditch.

c) As a result of the accident, the deceased sustained, grievious head injuries and succumbed to the same on the spot. The deceased was stated to be aged about 35 years and earning a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month through agricultural activities. On the said basis, compensation was claimed.

4. The sole respondent filed its counter and denied the manner of the accident, earning capacity and age of the deceased. It was further contended that the deceased did not possess a valid driving license and that the risk of the owner was not covered under the policy. Thus, the respondent prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LEARNED TRIBUNAL

5. Upon consideration of the rival pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed the necessary issues for adjudication. During the course of trial, the petitioner No.1 was examined as PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A3. On behalf of respondent, its representative was examined as RW1 and got marked Exs.B1 and B2.

FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED TRIBUNAL

6. Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned Tribunal passed the impugned order awarding Rs.4,85,800/- as compensation to the claimants. Aggrieved by the same, the Insurance Company preferred the present appeal.

7. Heard Sri Kondadi Ajay Kumar, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/Insurance company and Sri Azar Sravan Kumar, the learned counsel representing Sri Kuldeep Jadhav, learned counsel on record for the claimants, perused the material available on record including the grounds of appeal.

POINT FOR CONSIDERATION

8. In the light of the rival submissions, the point that arises for determination is:

i) Whether the appellant/Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the claimants in respect of the deceased, who was the owner-cum-rider of the vehicle?

ii) If so, whether such liability is restricted to the extent of coverage under the compulsory personal accident (PA) cover as pr Ex.B1 policy?

iii) Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is sustainable in law?

iv) Whether the rate of interest awarded by the learned Tribun