Dismissed

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mr. John K. Mathew and Anr.

Bombay HC23 Jan 2024FA/1556/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Insurer appealed a compensation award arguing the claimant, an employee travelling in the employer's car, was not a third party. The Court held the comprehensive policy covered occupants including employees, and the objection was never pleaded before the Tribunal.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed without costs; claimant permitted to withdraw deposited amount with accrued interest; statutory amount to be transmitted to Tribunal for withdrawal per rules.

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Mr. John K. Mathew and Anr. — Insurance | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

1A-FA-1556-2019 .doc

¶2

S.S.Kilaje

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

FIRST APPEAL NO. 1556 OF 2019

¶6

Digitally signed by SONALI SONALISATISH SATISH KILAJE KILAJE Date:2024.02.12 19:19:08 +0530

¶7

National Insurance Co. Ltd.]
Jai Commercial Complex, J. K. Gram]
Near Cadbury Company]
Eastern Express Highway, Thane]
Policy No. 253501/31/08/6100002470 ] Appellant
 Versus
1. John K. Mathew ]
 Age 39 years,]
 R/at : Amit Co-op. Housing Society, 104, ]
 Sector – 8E, Kalamboli, Navi Mumbai – 410208]
]
2. Essdee Foundations & Constructions Pvt. Ltd.]
 1004, Mayures Cosmos, Sector 11,]
 CBD Belapur, Navi Mumbai, Dist. Thane.]
 (Owner of vehicle No.MH-04-AS-4614)] Respondents

¶8

……….
Mr. R.S. Vidyarthi a/w. Mohit Turakia i/b. Asim Vidyarthi, Advocate for
Appellant.

¶9

Mr. T. J. Mendon , Advocate for Respondent No.1.

¶10

 CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
 DATE : 23rd JANUARY, 2024.

¶11

JUDGMENT :

¶12

1.The issue involved in this appeal is, the claimant cannot be termed

¶13

as third party as he was travelling in the offending vehicle as an employee.

¶14

2.It is contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the
claimant was employee, who was travelling in his office car. When
claimant was travelling as an employee during the course of his

¶15

Corrected/modified as per speaking to minutes of order dated 8^th February, 2024.

¶16

1/3

¶17

1A-FA-1556-2019 .doc

¶18

S.S.Kilaje

¶19

employment, he cannot be termed as a third party, but this fact is not
considered by the Tribunal, hence requested to allow the appeal.

¶20

3.It is contention of learned counsel for Respondent No.1/ claimant
that the claimant was occupant in the car and the issue raised before this
Court by the appellant was not pleaded in the written statement. Learned
counsel further submitted that the insurance policy of the offending car
was comprehensive policy. It includes the occupants of the car. The
Tribunal has considered all the aspects while passing Judgment and Order
and no interference is required in it. Learned counsel further submits that
no evidence was led before the Tribunal by the appellant to prove the
defence taken by them.

¶21

Learned counsel for respondent No.1 has relied on:

¶22

(a) Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Santosh Satish Kumar Garg and others (2010 ACJ 2477)

¶23

(b) Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Meenakshi and others (2010 ACJ 2477)

¶24

4.I have heard both the learned counsel. Perused the Judgment and
Order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thane (for short “the
Tribunal”).

¶25

5.It is contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the
claimant (employee) who was traveling in the vehicle of employer cannot
be termed as a third party. In my view, the policy of the offending vehicle

¶26

Corrected/modified as per speaking to minutes of order dated 8^th February, 2024.

¶27

2/3

¶28

1A-FA-1556-2019 .doc

¶29

S.S.Kilaje

¶30

was a comprehensive policy. It includes payment of premium for the
occupants of the said car. This policy does not differentiate between the
employee and the occupants. The employee come under the term of
occupant as insurance premium for the occupant was already paid by the
owner of the vehicle. Moreover, the issue raised in appeal was not
pleaded in written statement of the appellant filed before the Tribunal
hence, I do not see merit in the contention that employee cannot be
termed as a third party/occupant.

¶31

6. In view of the above, I pass the following Order:

¶32

ORDER

¶33

(i) The appeal is dismissed. No order as to cost.

¶34

(ii) The claimant is permitted to withdraw deposited amount along with accrued interest thereon.

¶35

(iii) The statutory amount along with accrued interest be transmitted to the Tribunal. The parties are at liberty to withdraw it as per Rule.

¶36

(iv) The learned counsel for the appellant seeks stay of the Judgment and Order. The accident occurred in the year 2009, hence I am not inclined to grant stay.

¶37

7. The appeal is disposed of.

¶38

 (SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)

¶39

Corrected/modified as per speaking to minutes of order dated 8^th February, 2024.

¶40

3/3

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mr. John K. Mathew and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mr. John K. Mathew and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suresh Raghunath Patil(Deceased)Thr. LRS.1.1)USHA Suresh Patil Vs Jaysing Maruti More (Deceased) Thr. Lrs. 1.1)SHARADA Maruti More and Ors.

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Sunita Satsih Kadam and Ors.

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Tarabai Ramchandra Salvi(Died During Pendency of Claim Application)Thr.Lrs.Shilpa B.Bhosale and Ors.

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Hemangi Rajan Lakhan

Uniique Automobiles (I) Pvt. Ltd. through Its Representative Mr. Vijay Mahadev Jadhav Vs Mr. Nilesh Haindurao Patil and Anr.

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Kumari. Dhanashri Suresh Fadatare (Minor Hence by and through Her Natural Guardian I.E. Father)