Court dismissed the insurance company's appeal challenging a motor accident tribunal award. It held that under a standard motor package policy, coverage extends to occupants of private cars, and liability applies in cases of composite negligence.
Impugned award dated 30.07.2011 is upheld; appeal fails and is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR
M. A. (C) No. 248 of 2012
Appellant
Respondents
IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Limited
Versus Smt. Rita Verma 85 others
DB: Hon’ble Dr. Justice I. M. Quddusi 8r, Hon’ble Mr. Justice G. Minhajuddin
Shri Amrito Das, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Shivendu Pandya, Advocate for the respondents No. l to 3. Ms Hamida Siddque, Advocate for the respondent No.4.
O R D E R (Oral)
(Passedonthis12thdayofJune,2012)
Per Dr. I. M. Quddusi, J.
The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant/Insurance Company challenging the impugned award dated 30.07.201 1, passed by the First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur in Claim Case N0. 82/2010. The facts, in nutshell, are that on 20.08.2008 deceased Shailendra Verma was going to Nagpur by Innova Car, bearing registration No. C.G. O4/DC/3900, Which was owned by his mother (non—applicant No2). At the relevant‘ time the vehicle was insured by the appellant/Insurance Company and it was being driven by the non— applicant No’l (MirzaShamshad Beg). On the way, at about 3.30 a.m., due to rash and negligent driving of the non-applicant No. l, the car ran into the back portion of the stationary truck, bearing registration No. C.G. 04/ZA/3149. As a result the accident tiof \\ /
Shailendra Verma received grievous injuries and during the course of treatment he succumbed to those injuries on 27.082008. 3. The legal heirs/dependents of deceased Shailendra Verma filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for award of a total compensation of Rs. 27,00,000/— under various heads, wherein learned Claims Tribunal, by the impugned award has grantedatotalsumofRs.4,17,500/—alongwithinterest @6% per I annum from the date of the application till payment, fastening the liability upon the non-applicants No. 1 to 3 to pay the amount of compensation, jointly and severally. Being aggrieved, the Insurance Company has filed the instant appeal. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the lower Court record and found that the deceased was the occupant of the vehicle and even in the case of contributory negligence for the purpose of the deceased i.e. occupant it would be a composite negligence. Therefore the Insurance Company, if has been held liable to pay then there is no illegality because we have found that the insurance company had insured the vehicle under a‘ package policy (Private Car Insurance Package Policy). It may be noticed that the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Head Office, New Delhi vide circular No. HO/MOT(U/W)/282/2008-09/CR—6473, dated 25th “Liability November, 2009 in regard to of insurance companies in respect of occupant of a private car and pillion rider in a two wheeler under standard motor package policy (also called comprehensive policy)”totheeffectthatvidecirculardated 16. l 1.2009 the IRDA has confirmed that insured’s liability in respect of occupant carried in a Private Car and Pillion Rider carried on two wheeler is covered under the Standard Motor Package Policy. Therefore, it was advised to \ if \
immediately review all cases Where appeal has been field 0n the groundsthatInsurerisnotliable for occupants of Private Cars and Pillion Rider in a 2—Wheeler under the Motor Package Policy. If the appeal is based solely on these grounds then it must be immediately withdrawn.
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of T. O. Anthony Vs. Karvarnan ‘cornposite and othersl has held that there is difference between l negligence’ and‘contributory negligence’. In an accident involving two or more vehicles, where a third party (other than the drivers/owners of the vehicles involved) claims damages for loss or injuries, compensation is payable in respect of the‘composite negligence’ of the drivers of those vehicles. The claimants may claim the entire compensation from any of the insurance companies/owners or drivers of the vehicles. However, in case of‘contributory negligence’ when a person suffers injury partly due to negligence on part of another personor personsand partlyasaresultofhisownnegligence,then negligence on the part of injured which contributed to the accident is referred to as his‘contributory negligence’. In View of the foregoing there is no ground to interfere in the impugned award. In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs.
The LCR may be sent back to the Tribunal, without any delay.
SdlI.M. Quddusi ; Sd/Judge G. Minhajuddin Judge
Thak‘ur
1 (2008) 3 scc 748
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the insurance company is liable to pay compensation where the deceased was an occupant in a private car insured under a package policy and the accident arose from composite negligence.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
T. O. Anthony Vs. KarvarnanExplained¶17
(2008) 3 SCC 748 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Limited
Smt. Rita Verma 85 others
I. M. Quddusi
G. Minhajuddin
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
