Partly allowed

Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Company Ltd., v. Maniram

Rajasthan HC16 Feb 2024CMA/2103/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan allowed an insurance appeal holding that statutory liability for vehicle damage is capped at Rs.6,000/- under Section 147(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, unless extra premium is proved. The Tribunal's excess award was modified.

What did the court decide?

The insurer to pay only Rs.6,000/- towards vehicle damage; claimants to recover the balance from the vehicle owner/driver.

Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Company Ltd., Vs Maniram — Insurance | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:8276]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2103/2019

¶4

Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Company Ltd., Jodhpur Office At N.k. Tower, Chopasni Road, Jodhpur Through Its Authorized Representative.

¶5

----Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Maniram S/o Jamanlal Swami, R/o Village Bandanu, Tehsil Nokha, District Bikaner.

¶8

Premaram S/o Kesharam Jat, R/o Village Krishnpura, Tehsil Ladanu, District Nagaur. (Registered Owenr Of Tractor)

¶9

Nanuram S/o Ramdevaram Jat, R/o Village Genana, Tehsil Ladanu, District Nagaur. (Actual Owner Of The Tractor)

¶10

Purakhnath S/o Padamnath Siddha, R/o Village Punarasar, Tehsil Sri Dungarpur, District Bikaner(Tractor Driver)

¶11

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Through Its Divisional Manager, Panhshati Circle, Sadulganj, Bikaner. (Insurer Of The Bolero)

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

For Appellant(s)	: Mr. Jagdish Chandra Vyas
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Pradeep Choudhary
	Mr. Rajesh Punia

¶14

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

¶15

Order

¶16

16/02/2024

¶17

The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment/award dated 25.03.2019 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bikaner in MAC Case No.150/2014 whereby the learned Tribunal proceeded on to award an amount of Rs.1,25,709/- in favour of the injured claimant.

[2024:RJ-JD:8276]

[CMA-2103/2019]

(2 of 4)

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the amount of Rs.82,709/- awarded qua the damage to the vehicle, by the learned Tribunal, is totally erroneous in terms of the settled proposition of law. He submits that Section 147 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 specifically provides that the liability of the Insurance Company in respect of damage to any property of a third party would be limited to an extent of Rs.6,000/-. It is nowhere proved on record that any extra premium was paid by the claimant qua any extra liability other than the statutory liability and hence, nothing more than an amount of Rs.6,000/could have been awarded qua the said head.

¶22

In support of his submission, counsel relied upon the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Anr.; 2003 ACTC (Raj.) 125.

¶23

Learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to refute the ratio as laid down in the abovementioned judgment as well as the specific provision of law.

¶24

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶25

Section 147(2) of the Act of 1988 (prior to Amendment Act of 2019) read as under:

¶26

"(2) Subject to the proviso to sub-section (1), a policy of insurance referred to in sub-section (1), shall cover any liability incurred in respect of any accident, up to the following limits, namely:—

¶27

(a) save as provided in clause (b), the amount of liability incurred;

¶28

(b) in respect of damage to any property of a

¶29

third party, a limit of rupees six thousand :

¶30

Provided that any policy of insurance issued with any limited liability and in force, immediately before the commencement of this Act, shall

¶31

(3 of 4) [CMA-2103/2019]

¶32

[2024:RJ-JD:8276]

¶33

continue to be effective for a period of four months after such commencement or till the date of expiry of such policy whichever is earlier."

¶34

Meaning thereby, the statute specifically provided for an outer limit of the liability of the Insurance Company qua damage to the vehicle of a third party. In the case of New India Assurance Company Limited (supra), the Division Bench held as under:

¶35

“10. Accordingly, in our opinion, there is no room for further contention before this court in view of the decision in C.M. Jaya's case (supra) that the insurance company may be made liable to make payment of entire amount of compensation arising out of damages to the property in excess of statutory liability where no higher amount is accepted by accepting a higher premium and thereafter the insurance company may recover the same from the insured.”

¶36

In view of the above clear provision of law as well as the ratio laid down in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited (supra), the finding of the learned Tribunal holding the Insurance Company liable to pay the amount of Rs.82,709/- qua the damage to the vehicle in question deserves modification. It is hereby held that the Insurance Company would be liable to pay an amount of Rs.6,000/- only qua the award of Rs.82,709/-. However, the claimants shall be at liberty to recover the remaining amount of award qua the said head from the owner/driver of the vehicle in question.

¶37

This Court does not find any ground to interfere with the amount as awarded by the learned Tribunal qua the other heads. The same being a meagre amount of Rs.13,000/- qua the injuries and Rs.30,000/- qua the mental and the physical agony, does not deserve any indulgence.

¶38

[2024:RJ-JD:8276]

¶39

[CMA-2103/2019]

¶40

With the above observations, the present appeal as preferred by the Insurance Company is partly allowed . The impugned award is modified to the extent that the appellant-Insurance Company would be liable to pay an amount of Rs.6,000/- only towards the award of Rs.82,709/- qua the damage to the vehicle in question. As observed above, the claimants shall be entitled to recover the remaining amount from the owner/driver of the vehicle in question.

¶41

Stay petition and all pending applications, if any, stand disposed of .

¶42

(REKHA BORANA),J

¶43

89-KashishS/-

Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Company Ltd., v. Maniram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Company Ltd., v. Maniram

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

Icici Lambard Motor Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Ansi Devi

Smt.Jeevni and Anr. Vs Sanjeev Kumar and Ors.

Smt. Vali Bai Vs Mohan Singh Rathore and Ors.

Suresh Sharma Vs Tata Finance Ltd.

Lrs of Fateh Mohd. Vs Kailash Chand

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs Anek Kanwar