Partly allowed

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Smt. Lalita

Rajasthan HC21 Mar 2024CMA/594/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against an award of Rs. 15,00,000 for a death accident, the Court held that under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the maximum compensation is Rs. 5,00,000 irrespective of negligence. The Tribunal's award was reduced to Rs. 5,00,000 with interest.

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgment modified; claimants entitled to Rs. 5,00,000 with interest at 9% per annum.

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Smt… — Motor Accident Claims | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:13516]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 594/2024

¶4

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Office, F.0203, 1St Floor, Mangalam Fun Square, Durga Nurcery Road, Udaipur (Raj.) (Insurance Company)

¶5

----Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

1. Smt. Lalita W/o Late Mana, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Jherbadi, Tehsil Gangad Talai, Dist. Banswara (Raj.) (Wife Of The Deceased)

¶8

Amit S/o Late Mana, Aged About 12 Years, (Minor) Minor Represented Next Friend And Guardian Mother Smt. Lalita W/o Late Mana. R/o Jherbadi, Tehsil Gangad Talai, Dist. Banswara (Raj.) (Son Of The Deceased)

¶9

Sandeep S/o Late Mana, Aged About 10 Years, (Minor) Minor Represented Next Friend And Guardian Mother Smt. Lalita W/o Late Mana. R/o Jherbadi, Tehsil Gangad Talai, Dist. Banswara (Raj.) (Son Of The Deceased)

¶10

Kajal D/o Late Mana, Aged About 9 Years, (Minor) Minor Represented Next Friend And Guardian Mother Smt. Lalita W/o Late Mana. R/o Jherbadi, Tehsil Gangad Talai, Dist. Banswara (Raj.) (Daughter Of The Deceased)

¶11

Smt. Shanti W/o Nanji Garasiya, Aged About 56 Years, R/ o Jherbadi, Tehsil Gangad Talai, Dist. Banswara (Raj.) (Mother Of The Deceased)

¶12

Javsingh S/o Savaji Bhai Damor, R/o Raupriya, Jhalod (Guj.) (Owner)

¶13

----Respondents

¶14

For Appellant(s)	: Mr. Vishal Singhal
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Raghuveer Singh Bhati

¶15

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

¶16

Order

¶17

21/03/2024

¶18

The present appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and award dated 19.12.2023 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Banswara in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 437/2021 whereby an amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- has been awarded in favour of the claimants.

¶19

Learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company raised the following two grounds:-

[2024:RJ-JD:13516]

[CMA-594/2024]

(2 of 4)

(i) The present was a claim under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1988). In terms of the said section, the maximum compensation that can be awarded to the claimants in a death case is Rs.5,00,000/-. Learned counsel submits that therefore, no amount over and above Rs.5,00,000/- could have been awarded by the learned Tribunal.

¶24

(ii). The deceased, who was also the driver of the vehicle in question, was himself negligent and liable for the accident as he himself dashed into the other vehicle. Therefore also, keeping into consideration the negligence of the deceased driver, no award could have been passed in favour of the claimants.

¶25

Learned counsel for the respondents could not refute the fact that the claim in the present matter was filed under Section 163A of the Act of 1988 and hence, the claimants would be governed by the said provision as amended by the amendment introduced vide the gazette notification dated 22.05.2018.

¶26

However, responding to the argument qua the negligence of the deceased driver, counsel submitted that it is a settled position of law that in claims under Section 163A of the Act of 1988, the negligence of the tortfeasor driver cannot be taken into consideration and an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- is to be awarded irrespective of any finding qua negligence.

¶27

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

¶28

Admittedly, the present was a claim under Section 163A of the Act of 1988. It is also an undisputed position of law that in terms of the amended provision of Section 163A existing in the

[2024:RJ-JD:13516]

[CMA-594/2024]

(3 of 4)

Statute Book at that point of time, the maximum amount payable qua compensation in a death case was Rs.5,00,000/-. Therefore, the award for an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- as passed by the Tribunal in favour of the claimants being in contravention to law, deserves interference and the same cannot be upheld.

¶33

It is thus held that claimants would be entitled for an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- only in their favour with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the filing of the claim petition. 6. So far as the issue of negligence of the deceased driver is concerned, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in United India Insurance Company vs. Sunil Kumar and Ors; AIR 2017 SC 5710 , in the proceedings under Section 163A of the Act of 1988, the insurer cannot raise any defence of negligence on part of the victim to counter a claim for compensation.

¶34

The Hon'ble Apex Court therein observed that if an Insurer is permitted to raise a defence of negligence under Section 163A of the Act of 1988, it would bring the proceedings under Section 163A at par with the proceedings under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 which would not only be self-contradictory but also defeat the very legislative intent.

¶35

In view of the above settled position of law, the ground as raised by counsel for the appellant cannot be said to be tenable. 7. The present appeal is hence, Partly Allowed . The impugned judgment/award dated 19.12.2023 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Banswara in Motor Accident Claim Case No.437/2021 is modified to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition.

(4 of 4)

[2024:RJ-JD:13516]

[CMA-594/2024]

The amount of compensation be deposited by the appellant Insurance Company with the learned Tribunal within a period of six weeks from now. The amount when deposited be disbursed to the claimants in terms of the award.

¶40

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

¶41

(REKHA BORANA),J

¶42

299-AbhishekK/Devanshi-

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Smt. Lalita

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Smt. Lalita

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

Nikhil Taneja Vs N. Suresh

Rasal Kanwar Vs Harish Chand

Kanji Vs Dinesh Kumar Meena

Narpat Poonar Vs Ajiti Devi

Hamir Singh Vs Pepa Ram @ Pradeep

Rajendra Kumar Vs Smt.Mangla Devi