Dismissed

Maani Devi v. National Insurance Company Limited

Rajasthan HC27 Sept 2018CMA/2555/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur dismissed an appeal preferring a challenge to a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal order rejecting a claim for death compensation under Section 163A. The Court held that since the deceased borrowed the vehicle, the heirs stepped into the shoes of the owner and could not claim under Section 163A.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed summarily. Compensation claim under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 rejected.

Maani Devi Vs National Insurance Company… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

¶2

JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2555/2018

¶4

Maani Devi W/o Late Pemaram

¶5

Dinesh s/o Late Pemaram

¶6

Ashok s/o Late Pemaram

¶7

Ramsingh s/o Late Pemaram

¶8

All B/c Vishnoi (Jaangu), R/o Gram Post Kosana, Tehsil Bhopalgarh, Dist Jodhpur)

¶9

----Appellants

¶10

Versus

¶11

National Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office 654 Amar Tower, Residency Road, Jodhpur (Insurer of Motor Cycle No.RJ-19-SZ-8310 for the period from 16/01/2012 to 15/01/2013)

¶12

Sahiram s/o Shri Pokarram, by caste Vishoni, resident of Sangasani, Post Khejarli, Tehsil Luni, District Jodhpur (Register owner of Motorcycle No.RJ-19-SZ-8310 at the time of accident).

¶13

----Respondents

¶14

For Appellant(s) : Mr. A.K. Bishnoi

¶15

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. LOHRA

¶16

Judgment

¶17

27/09/2018

¶18

Appellant-claimants have preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'Act') challenging judgment and award dated 12^th of July 2018, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (First), Jodhpur (for short, ‘learned Tribunal’), dismissing their claim for compensation.

¶19

Brief facts of the case are that appellants laid a claim under Section 163A of the Act before learned Tribunal claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.9,00,000, inter-alia, with the

¶20

(2 of 5)

¶21

[CMA-2555/2018]

¶22

averments that on 16.03.2012, deceased Pema Ram was riding motorcycle bearing Registration No. 19-SZ-8310 of one Sahi Ram borrowed by him for visiting his field and while on the way to field due to skidding of motorcycle fell on the ground his head upside down and sustained simple and grievous injuries on his body including on his head and ultimately succumbed to the injuries. In the claim petition, appellants averred that at the time of accident deceased was 43 years old and was earning livelihood by driving vehicles. Asserting that appellant-claimants were dependent on him under different heads a sum of Rs.9,00,000 claimed.

¶23

The claim petition was contested by respondent No. 1 Insurance Company. In its return, most of the averments of claim petition were denied and objection was raised that the deceased was not having valid driving licence at the time of accident and the insurance company was not informed about accident as such conditions of the policy violated. It was asserted that the accident took place due to own fault of the deceased and prayer was made for rejection of the claim petition. Respondent No.2, registered owner of the motorcycle involved in accident, while denying the averments of claim petition for want of knowledge averred that the claim was laid exorbitantly to which the claimants are not entitled. It was averred that though he was registered owner of the motorcycle at the time of accident but it was insured with respondent No.1. He also prayed for rejection of the claim petition but only against him.

¶24

On the basis of pleadings of the parties, learned Tribunal framed three issues for determination. From the side of

¶25

(3 of 5)

¶26

[CMA-2555/2018]

¶27

appellants-claimants, Appellant No.1 Smt. Maani Devi appeared in the witness-box as AW1 and got examined AW2 Mukna Ram. While deciding issue No. 1, the learned Tribunal has recorded a categorical finding that the deceased died due to the injuries sustained in an accident while using the aforesaid motorcycle and decided the issue in favour of appellant-claimants and against the respondents. Adverting to Issue No. 2, learned Tribunal has observed that the deceased had borrowed the motorcycle of nonclaimant respondent No.2 and deceased was plying it at the time of alleged accident. The learned Tribunal arrived at the conclusion that appellant-claimants are not entitled for any compensation and thereby decided issue No.2 against appellant-claimants and in favour of respondents. For this conclusion, learned Tribunal has placed reliance on a decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Ningamma & Anr. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2009) 13 SSC 710] wherein the Hon'ble Court held as under:

¶28

"In the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Rajni Devi and Others: (2008) 5 SCC 736, wherein one of us, namely, Hon'ble Justice S.B. Sinha is a party, it has been categorically held that in a case where third party is involved, the liability of the insurance company would be unlimited. It was also held in the said decision that where, however, compensation is claimed for the death of the owner or another passenger of the vehicle, the contract of insurance being governed by the contract qua contract, the claim of the claimant against the insurance company would depend upon the terms thereof. It was held in the said decision that Section 163-A of the MVA cannot be said to have any application in respect of an accident wherein the owner of the motor vehicle himself is involved. The decision further held that the question is no longer res integra. The liability under section 163-A of the MVA is on the owner of the vehicle. So a person cannot be both, a claimant as also a recipient, with respect to claim. Therefore, the heirs of the deceased could not have maintained a claim in terms of Section 163-A of the MVA. In our considered opinion, the ratio of the

¶29

(4 of 5)

¶30

[CMA-2555/2018]

¶31

aforesaid decision is clearly applicable to the facts of the present case. In the present case, the deceased was not the owner of the motorbike in question. He borrowed the said motorbike from its real owner. The deceased cannot be held to be employee of the owner of the motorbike although he was authorised to drive the said vehicle by its owner, and therefore, he would step into the shoes of the owner of the motorbike.

¶32

We have already extracted Section 163-A of the MVA hereinbefore. A bare perusal of the said provision would make it explicitly clear that persons like the deceased in the present case would step into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle. In a case wherein the victim died or where he was permanently disabled due to an accident arising out of the aforesaid motor vehicle in that event the liability to make payment of the compensation is on the insurance company or the owner, as the case may be as provided under Section 163-A. But if it is proved that the driver is the owner of the motor vehicle, in that case the owner could not himself be a recipient of compensation as the liability to pay the same is on him. This proposition is absolutely clear on a reading of Section 163-A of the MVA. Accordingly, the legal representatives of the deceased who have stepped into the shoes of the owner of the motor vehicle could not have claimed compensation under Section 163-A of the MVA."

¶33

For arriving at its conclusion on Issue No.2 against appellantclaimants, the learned Tribunal has also relied on the decision in Meena Jain (Smt.) & Ors. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in 2017(2) ACTC (Raj.) 1095.

¶34

A bare perusal of the Section 163A would make it explicitly clear that the accident, as alleged, was result of deceased’s own wrong, as such, the appellant-claimants are not entitled to derive any benefit under Section 163A and the persons like the claimants in the present case would ipso facto step into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle. In a case wherein the victim died or where he was permanently disabled due to an accident arising out of the aforesaid motor vehicle in that event the liability to make payment

¶35

(5 of 5)

¶36

[CMA-2555/2018]

¶37

of the compensation is on the insurance company or the owner, as the case may be, as is provided under Section 163A. But, if it is proved that the driver is the owner of the motor vehicle, in that case the owner could not himself be a recipient of compensation as the liability to pay the same is on him. This proposition is absolutely clear on a reading of Section 163A of the M.V. Act. Accordingly, the claimants, who have stepped into the shoes of the owner of the motor vehicle, could not have claimed compensation under Section 163A of the M.V. Act.

¶38

Having heard learned counsel for the appellants and on perusal of the record of the entire claim case, in my opinion, the learned Tribunal has not committed any illegality in rejecting the claim of the appellants.

¶39

It is not in dispute that the deceased was driving motorcycle of someone else at the time of accident and therefore having stepped in the shoes of owner the appellants/claimants are not entitled to any compensation under Section 163A of the Act of 1988 as per the verdict of Hon'ble Apex Court in Ningamma's case (supra). Thus, I find no infirmity in the impugned award, whereby claim petition of the appellant-claimants is dismissed.

¶40

Resultantly, the appeal fails and same is dismissed summarily.

Maani Devi v. National Insurance Company Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maani Devi v. National Insurance Company Limited

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

Shri Ram G.I.C.Ltd. Vs Bheru Lal and Ors.

Rukhsar Bano Vs Saddam Hussain

Rajnikant Vs State of Rajasthan

Joga Ram Vs State

Chutra Ram Vs State

Neeraj Vs State