Allowed

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Ashutosh Shrivas and Another

Chhattisgarh HC13 Dec 2012MAC/224/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal by an insurance company against a Tribunal award. The court held that an owner-driver is not a third party under Sections 165 and 166 and thus cannot maintain a claim petition under Section 166 against their own insurer. The impugned award was set aside.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was allowed, and the impugned award of the tribunal was set aside, exonerating the appellant from liability.

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Ashutosh Shrivas and Another — Insurance | Chhattisgarh HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶3

SB: HON'BLE SHRI R.N.CHANDRAKAR., J

¶4

Misc. Appeal (0 No. 224 of 2006

¶5

Appellant The Oriental Insurance Company Limited through its Divisional Manager, Branch Kutchehri Chowk, Madina Manzil, Raipur

¶6

Vereus

¶7

Respondents

¶8

Ashutosh Shrivash and another.

¶9

POST FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER

¶10

Sd/R.N. Chandrakar Judge

¶11

i7 -li-iUl^.

¶12

Sdi1 -12-2012 |<^

¶13

/^fc^ •^ '^ -s^ -;.^-.SS' '^S&iiM

¶14

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶15

(SB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Rangnath Chandrakar)

¶16

Misc. Appeal (0 No. 224 of 2006

¶17

Appellant The Oriental Insurance Company Limited through its Divisional Manager, Branch Kutchehri Chowk, Madina Manzil, Raipur

¶18

Vs. Respojidents/ Ashutosh Srivash s/o. Virendra Shrivas, Claimant/owner aged 26 years, r/o. Shankar Nagar, near T.V. Tower, Raipur, CG. Driver 2. Charan Singh Sahu, s/o. Chaitu Ram Sahu, aged 27 years, r/o. Bhawani Nagar, village Jora, Tah. & Distt. Raipur (CG).

¶19

(Appeal underSection 173 ofthe Motor VehicleAct, 1988)

¶20

Present:

¶21

Mr. G.S. Patel, counsel for the appellant.

¶22

Mr. Praful Bharat and Shri Keshaw Dewangan, counsel for respondents No.1 and2.

¶23

ORDER

¶24

-12-2012) (Passed on )^

¶25

The appellant/Oriental Insurance Company Limited has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short,^"the Act 1988") challenging the impugned award dated 16-12-2005 passed by Motor Accident Claims Triburtal (for short, "the Tribunal"), Raipur, in Claim Case No. 54 of 2005, whereby the appellant/Ortental Insurance Company was held liable to pay compensation to the claiiriant.

¶26

Bnef facts of the case, in short, are that on 25-3-2005 respondent No.1/ . - ^. claimant was traveling in his own Mini-bus bearing registration No. CG '04/7005 and on the way from Raipur to Mahasamund, the vehicle turned

¶27

¶28

iiii,,i,i..^i![:iu'ral-ir *% .^•-y^ j ^k. ':^.^ .^ ••^yK.^r-^ •'-s-^,^"^''

¶29

turtle due to rash and hegligent driving of its driver Charan Singh as a result of which the claimant sustained injuries and was also admitted in hospital where he remained from 25-3-2005 to 19-4-2005. He was operated and thereafter he was discharged.

¶30

The respondent No.l/claimant filed a claim petition under Section 166 ofthe Motor Vehicle Act claiming the compensation of Rs.5,55,000/- before the Claims Tribunal on account of injuries sustained by him in a motor accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Minibus driven by respondent No.2 herein. The claims tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.82,000/- along with interest @ 6% from the date of application till its actual payment.

¶31

Mr. G.S. Patel, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the tribunal -.has erred in fastening the liability upon the appellant/lnsurance company as at the tiftne of accident, claimanVrespondent No.1 was traveling in his own Minibus, therefore, claimant/respondent No.1 does not cover under third partly and only third party can prefer the claims for compensation under Section 166 of the Act, therefore, the appeal of the appellant be allowed and impugned award passed by the learned tribunal be set aside. Per contra, Shri Praful Bharat and Shri Kesav Dewangan, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 and 2 supported the award award.

¶32

1 have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned award and record of the tribunal.

¶33

From perusal of the impugned award it is clear that the learned Tribunal has decided issue No.4 which reads as below:

¶34

"tPIT 311^<;4> ~^V Pl-ti^O ^T|fcp ^ft.uft. 04/7005 :U1lP>ld ^t, afl^tp V ^l*f|E|l'itti t, $'tlRl<) ^cfTq ^TtET ^ ^nft ^ ^ SIT^ eri?P^ qT^ ^T ^ l<("l 3f-1lj<;<t» 11' 2 q?T 8)R|i^Rf ^ Rri ^t^ 3lfE|ct>|^ f "

¶35

^lf^^lt ?

¶36

¶37

The Claims tribunal while passing impugned award held that the Insurance

¶38

Company has not proved, therefore, applicant is entitied for compensation despite the fact that on the date of accjdent it was not disputed that the

¶39

,:---^l';y3.'a^, ^.-W!,. ^ ;£!a&8fc " T 3

¶40

¶41

claimant was the owner of the offending vehicle and it was also not in dispute that the driver ofthe offending vehicle was Charan Singh and the vehicle was insured with Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Learned tribunal has decided in para 37 ofthe impugned award on the ground that the offending vehicle was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company at the time of incident, therefore, learned Tribunal held that the appelSant Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the claimant/respondent No.1, but it has not discussed the matter that claimant does not come under purview of third party,^{therefore,theclaimantisnotentitledforccmpensationfromInsurance} company/non-applicant No.2. The Tribunaihas decided against the appellant/lnsurance Company Limited without ass;gning any reason.

¶42

Hon'ble the High Court of Chhattisgarh, ;n Orieiital Inswance Comfanyvs. Pooranlal and anoiher, reported in AIR20SSChha sgarh77, in para9 has held which reads as under;

¶43

"Thus, from the conjoint reading of Sections 165 and 1S6 ofthe Act it is manifestly clear^-.hat only thirdparty can prefer^{claimsforccmpens£:bnin} rospect of accidents involving the death of &r bodily injury to person^{arisingoutofusecfmotorvshicle,ordamagds} to any property, it is not disputed that the instant application was preferred by respondsnt No.l/claimant who is also insured owner of the vehicles and as such he is not the third party and thus the claim petition at his instance cannot be maintained.

¶44

In the present case also the claimant is insured owner cf the Minibus and as

¶45

such ti2 is not the third party and thus the c!a:m petition at his irsstance cannot be maintained. In viev/ of the above, the appellanVOriental^'nsurance Company is exonerated from liability to pay compensation to the daimant. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and impugned award passed by the

¶46

Tribunal is set aside.

¶47

No order as to costs.

¶48

Sd/-
R.N.

¶49

Raju

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Ashutosh Shrivas and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Ashutosh Shrivas and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt Kaushaliya Bai and Others

Smt Geeta Bai and Ors. Vs Ramdayal Sahu and Others

Manoj Kumar Sarthi Vs Smt. Firan Bai and Another

Div.Manager Oriental Insu.Co.Ltd. Vs Kamal Kumar Dheevar and Others

Kepat Ram and Ors. Vs Shailesh Kumar Gupta and Ors.

Bhuval Sharma Vs Gurmit Singh Anors