Allowed

N.I.C.Ltd. v. Prateek @ Banti and Ors.

Rajasthan HC14 Jul 2010CMA/512/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Insurance Company was an insurer under a private car policy for 'Act' liability. The court held that a claimant injured as a passenger, who was not the driver or a workman of the insured vehicle, does not fall within the ambit of the insurance cover under such a policy.

What did the court decide?

The award against the appellant insurer dated 21.1.10 in MACT Case No. 54/08 is set aside. The appellant insurer is held to have no liability to indemnify the compensation.

N.I.C.Ltd. Vs Prateek @ Banti and Ors. — Insurance | Rajasthan HC (2010)

¶1

1 S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 512/2010 NIC Vs. Prateek & Ors.

¶2

S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO. 512/2010 (National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Prateek @ Banti & Ors)

¶3

Date : 14.07.2010

¶4

HON'BLE MR. C.M. TOTLA, J.

¶5

Mr. Jagdish Vyas for the appellant. Mr. Deepak Menaria ] for the respondents. Mr. Parvat Singh ] = = = =

¶6

In an accident occurring on 27.0.7.06 Car No. RJ 27 1C 0256 and tractor No. RJ 19 RA 0717, the respondent no.1 who happens to be son of the car owner was injured.

¶7

Learned Tribunal accepting claim awarded compensation Rs.92,000/- payable by appellant car insurer, car owner and tractor driver cum owner.

¶8

Insurer challenges questions his liability.

¶9

The only question argued and involved is whether person who happens to be son of owner of vehicle i.e. private and not driving the vehicle which insured for only Act liability is entitled for reimbursement on the insurer of that vehicle. In other words, the insurer under only Act policy to reimburse for a person not driving the very vehicle insured.

¶10

Learned counsel submits that admittedly injured was occupier in a car which owned by father and driven by other person and insurance being only to the mandatory extent of Act liability and driven by other person so the insurer is under no obligation to indemnify for such a person as does not come in third person or any person. Argued that for injured liability could have been of said other vehicle involved tractor.

¶11

In support of contentions cited are MACD 2008 SC 272 (Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Rajni Devi & Ors.) MACD 2009 (SC) 93 (New India

¶12

2 S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 512/2010 NIC Vs. Prateek & Ors.

¶13

Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sadanand Mukhi & Ors.) and MACD 2009 (SC) 382 Ningamma & Anr Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

¶14

Learned counsel for the respondent submits that in an incident involved are two vehicle are collided therefore, claimant is third party very much within ambit of any person as envisaged under Section 147 and other provisions. Argued that not necessarily findings, if any, of no negligence of tractor driver/owner is correct and moreover claim was and allowed under Section 163 A with no issue of negligence.

¶15

Having a careful look at the record and judgment assailed considered arguments. Per claim petition admittedly claimant with his mother and sister was travelling in the vehicle which was being driven by other person on straight way allegedly due to sudden turning of tractor accident occurred. And they all including car driver injured. Claimant in deposition accepted car to be of father and also appear that father also was in the car. The vehicle was insured as private car and for Act liability, policy certificate and schedule chart of premium is on record. Premium paid is Rs.500/- basic T.P., Rs. 100/- for compulsory P.A to owner cum driver and Rs.25/- for Workmen Compensation to one employee. Clearly it is only for Act liability policy and so is also specifically mentioned in the policy. Claimant was not driving the vehicle of owner and he occupying and driving with other family members in capacity of family member of owner. Respondent claimant neither was driver nor workman, this being the position injured claimant in no way fall within ambit of third person or any person in relation to the insurer of vehicle he occupying and travelling.

¶16

Other questions raised regarding whether or not any negligence of tractor driver need not be gone into as claim under Section 163 A and appeal is only of insurer of the car above mentioned and moreover when

¶17

3 S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 512/2010 NIC Vs. Prateek & Ors.

¶18

drive rof this car and others are also alleged to be injured.

¶19

For the reasons above, and as respondent no.1 and as appellant insurer do not have liability for payment of compensation to respondent no.1, appeal is to be allowed.

¶20

Accordingly, allowing the appeal, award dated 21.1.10 (in MACT Case No. 54/08) qua the appellant is set aside. Appellant insurer is held to be under no liability to indemnify or reimburse the compensation amount awarded to respondent no.1.

¶21

(C.M. TOTLA), J.

¶22

N.I.C.Ltd. v. Prateek @ Banti and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.I.C.Ltd. v. Prateek @ Banti and Ors.

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

Lokendra Singh Vs Badari Lal and Ans

Smt. Baya and Anr. Vs Ratanlal and Ors.

Tafajjul Hussain and Ors. Vs Jaya Singhvi and Ors.

Gopal Giri Vs Abdul Mazid and Ors.

United India Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Abdul Majid and Ors.

United India Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Smt. Yashodara and Ors.