Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 3826 (HP)

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Meena Devi

2025-10-16

Satyen Vaidya

body2025
Judgment : Satyen Vaidya, J. This appeal has been preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the Act) against the award dated 5.6.2018, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-I, Sirmour District at Nahan, H.P. (for short the Tribunal) in MAC Petition No. 252-MAC/2 of 2015, whereby compensation of Rs. 4,05,500/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum has been awarded in favour of respondents No. 1 to 4 herein (hereinafter referred to as the Claimants) on account of death of Sh. Ram Kumar. 2. On 26.11.2015, at about 11.15 PM deceased Ram Kumar while riding Motorcycle No. HP-17D-0682 met with an accident at Bata Pull Chowk, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, with respondent No.5 herein (hereinafter referred to as the Owner) of the motorcycle on the pillion. 3. Ram Kumar succumbed to the injuries suffered by him as a result of accident. The claimants being wife and children of Ram Kumar preferred claim petition under Section 163A of the Act before the learned Tribunal by impleading the owner and Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Insurer) as party respondents. The cause of accident was attributed to failure of brakes of the motorcycle. 4. The owner in his reply to the claim petition admitted the occurrence of the accident involving Motorcycle No. HP-17D-0682. He also endorsed that the accident took place due to sudden failure of the brakes. The owner further disclosed the particulars of the insurer with whom the motorcycle was insured at the time of the accident. 5. The insurer filed its separate reply. Objections as to the maintainability of the petition were raised. It was contended that the deceased was not having valid and effective driving license to drive the motorcycle and the vehicle was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. It was also alleged that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of deceased himself, who was alleged to be under influence of liquor. 6. The learned Tribunal had framed the following issues:- “Issue No.1: Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation on account of death of deceased Ram Kumar involving vehicle No. HP-17D-0682 at place Surajpur? OPP Issue No.2: Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation as claimed and from whom? 6. The learned Tribunal had framed the following issues:- “Issue No.1: Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation on account of death of deceased Ram Kumar involving vehicle No. HP-17D-0682 at place Surajpur? OPP Issue No.2: Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation as claimed and from whom? Issue No.3: Whether the petition is not maintainable as the deceased was driving the vehicle himself by borrowing the vehicle from respondent No.1, the registered owner? OPR. Issue No.4: Whether the petitioner was driving the vehicle without  valid  driving  licence  and  in contravention of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy? OPR-2 Issue No.5: Whether the petition has been filed in collusion with petitioner and respondent No.1? OPR-2 Issue No. 6: Whether this petition is not maintainable as the deceased has sustained the injury on account of his own rash and negligent driving? OPR-2 Issue No. 7: Relief”. 7. Issues No. 1 and 2 were answered in affirmative, whereas all other issues were answered in negative. The claim petition was allowed and the claimants were held entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,05,500/-; the owner/insured was held liable to pay the compensation and insurer was held liable to indemnify the insured. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully. 9. Mr. Jagdish Thakur, learned counsel for the appellant/insurer has laid challenge to impugned award on the ground that the petition under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicle Act, by the legal representatives of deceased, who himself was riding the vehicle (motorcycle), was not maintainable as the deceased was not a third party. 10. In order to test the contention raised on behalf of the insurer, if we look at the facts of the case, it has been proved that deceased Ram Kumar was riding the motorcycle at the time of the accident. The owner of the motorcycle was on the pillion. There is not even a whisper in the pleadings or evidence of the claimants about the capacity of the deceased in riding the motorcycle. 11. The owner of the motorcycle has not taken a stand that the deceased was riding the motorcycle without his consent. In fact, as noticed above, the owner was himself on the pillion. There is not even a whisper in the pleadings or evidence of the claimants about the capacity of the deceased in riding the motorcycle. 11. The owner of the motorcycle has not taken a stand that the deceased was riding the motorcycle without his consent. In fact, as noticed above, the owner was himself on the pillion. In such circumstances, an inference can safely be drawn that the deceased was riding the motorcycle with the consent of the owner and thus, had stepped into the shoes of owner as borrower of the vehicle. 12. In Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Rajni Devi and others, (2008) 5 SCC 736 it has been held as under:- “11. The liability under Section 163-A of the Act is on the owner of the vehicle as a person cannot be both, a claimant as also a recipient. The heirs of Janakraj could not have maintained a claim in terms of Section 163- A of the Act. For the said purpose only the terms of the contract of insurance could be taken recourse to.” 13. In Ramkhiladi and another vs. United India Insurance Company and another, (2020) 2 SCC 550 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “9.5 It is true that, in a claim under Section 163A of the Act, there is no need for the claimants to plead or establish the negligence and/or that the death in respect of which the claim petition is sought to be established was due to wrongful act, neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle concerned. It is also true that the claim petition under Section 163A of the Act is based on the principle of no fault liability. However, at the same time, the deceased has to be a third party and cannot maintain a claim under Section 163A of the Act against the owner/insurer of the vehicle which is borrowed by him as he will be in the shoes of the owner and he cannot maintain a claim under Section 163A of the Act against the owner and insurer of the vehicle bearing registration No. RJ 02 SA 7811. In the present case, the parties are governed by the contract of insurance and under the contract of insurance the liability of the insurance company would be qua third party only. In the present case, the parties are governed by the contract of insurance and under the contract of insurance the liability of the insurance company would be qua third party only. In the present case, as observed hereinabove, the deceased cannot be said to be a third party with respect to the insured vehicle bearing registration No. RJ 02 SA 7811. There cannot be any dispute that the liability of the insurance company would be as per the terms and conditions of the contract of insurance. As held by this Court in the case of Dhanraj (supra), an insurance policy covers the liability incurred by the insured in respect of death of or bodily injury to any person (including an owner of the goods or his authorized representative) carried in the vehicle or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle. In the said decision, it is further held by this Court that Section 147 does not require an insurance company to assume risk for death or bodily injury to the owner of the vehicle. 9.6 In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, in the present case, as the claim under Section 163A of the Act was made only against the owner and insurance company of the vehicle which was being driven by the deceased himself as borrower of the vehicle from the owner of the vehicle and he would be in the shoes of the owner, the High Court has rightly observed and held that such a claim was not maintainable and the claimants ought to have joined and/or ought to have made the claim under Section 163A of the Act against the driver, owner and/or the insurance company of the offending vehicle i.e. RJ 29 2M 9223 being a third party to the said vehicle. 9.7 Now, so far as the reliance placed upon by the learned Advocate for the claimants on the decision of this Court in the case of Naveen Kumar (supra), on considering the issue involved in that decision, we are of the opinion that the said decision shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand and/or the same shall not be of any assistance to the claimants. In that case, the issue was as to who could be said to be the registered owner of the vehicle and the liability of the owner who sold the vehicle, but his name continued to be as the owner with the registering authority. To that, it was held that the person in whose name the motor vehicle stands registered is the owner of the vehicle for the purpose of the Act. 9.8 However, at the same time, even as per the contract of insurance, in case of personal accident the owner/driver is entitled to a sum of Rs.1 lakh. Therefore, the deceased, as observed hereinabove, who would be in the shoes of the owner shall be entitled to a sum of Rs.1 lakh, even as per the contract of insurance. However, it is the case on behalf of the original claimants that there is an amendment to the 2ndSchedule and a fixed amount of Rs.5 lakh has been specified in case of death and therefore the claimants shall be entitled to Rs.5 lakh. The same cannot be accepted. In the present case, the accident took place in the year 2006 and even the Judgment and Award was passed by the learned Tribunal in the year 2009, and the impugned Judgment and Order has been passed by the High Court in 10.05.2018, i.e. much prior to the amendment in the 2nd Schedule. In the facts and circumstance of the present case, the claimants shall not be entitled to the benefit of the amendment to the 2ndSchedule. At the same time, as observed hereinabove, the claimants shall be entitled to Rs.1 lakh as per the terms of the contract of insurance, the driver being in the shoes of the owner of the vehicle. 9.9 Now, so far as the submission made on behalf of the claimants that in a claim under Section 163A of the Act mere use of the vehicle is enough and despite the compensation claimed by the heirs of the owner of the motorcycle which was involved in the accident resulting in his death, the claim under Section 163A of the Act would be maintainable is concerned, in view of the decision of this Court in Rajni Devi (supra), the aforesaid cannot be accepted. In Rajni Devi (supra), it has been specifically observed and held that the provisions of Section 163A of the Act cannot be said to have any application with regard to an accident wherein the owner of the motor vehicle himself is involved. After considering the decisions of this Court in the cases of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Jhuma Saha (2007) 9 SCC 263 ; Dhanraj (supra); National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Laxmi Narain Dhut (2007) 3 SCC 700 and Premkumari v. Prahlad Dev (2008) 3 SCC 193 , it is ultimately concluded by this Court that the liability under Section 163A of the Act is on the owner of the vehicle as a person cannot be both, a claimant as also a recipient and, therefore, the heirs of the owner could not have maintained the claim in terms of Section 163A of the Act. It is further observed that, for the said purpose, only the terms of the contract of insurance could be taken recourse to. In the recent decision of this Court in the case of Ashalata Bhowmik (supra), it is specifically held by this Court that the parties shall be governed by the terms and conditions of the contract of insurance. Therefore, as per the contract of insurance, the insurance company shall be liable to pay the compensation to a third party and not to the owner, except to the extent of Rs.1 lakh as observed hereinabove.” 14. Keeping in view the aforesaid exposition of law, as also the applicability of facts at hand thereto, there is no hesitation to hold that the petition would not be maintainable under Section 163A of the Act because the owner cannot claim compensation for himself. 15. However, another aspect of the matter cannot be ignored as it comes out from the terms of the policy of insurance which binds the insured and the insurer. It is revealed that the insurer had insured the owner against personal accident to the extent of Rs.1,00,000/- and for such purpose, had accepted the premium of Rs.50/-. That being so, the insurer having agreed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- covering personal accident risk of the owner, cannot avoid such liability even in the case like the one in hand, where the deceased was in the vehicle by stepping into the shoes of the owner. 16. Thus, the appeal is partly allowed. That being so, the insurer having agreed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- covering personal accident risk of the owner, cannot avoid such liability even in the case like the one in hand, where the deceased was in the vehicle by stepping into the shoes of the owner. 16. Thus, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned award dated 5.6.2018, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-I, Sirmour District at Nahan, H.P. (for short the Tribunal) in MAC Petition No. 252-MAC/2 of 2015, is modified to the extent that the claimants will be paid compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of death of deceased Ram Kumar along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till actual realization. 17. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. Record be sent back forthwith.