Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 371 (HP)

UNITED INDIA INS. CO. LTD. v. AVTAR SACHDEVA

2005-10-03

V.M.JAIN

body2005
JUDGEMENT V. M. Jain: This appeal has been filed by the appellant Insurance Company against the Award dated 30.9.1994 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shimla, vide which a sum of Rs.8,40,000/- was awarded to the claimants along with interest on account of the death of Kuljit Singh Sachdev deceased in a motor vehicular accident and appellant Insurance Company was held liable to pay the said amount of compensation to the claimants. 2. The facts which are relevant for the decision of the present appeal are that on 23.7.1988, Kuljit Singh Sachdev (deceased) was travelling in a Maruti Gypsy, bearing Registration No. DDA-6231, being driven by Raj Pal Singh respondent (driver). The said vehicle met with an accident, as a result of which Kuljit Singh Sachdev deceased expired. The claimants, claiming themselves to be the widow, daughter and minor son of Kuljit Singh deceased filed the claim petition under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 for the grant of Rs.30,00,000/-as compensation for the death of Kuljit Singh Sachdev deceased in the said accident. As per the claimants, Raj Pal Singh driver was driving the said vehicle rashly, negligently and at a fast speed and could not control the vehicle, as a result of which it fell into Pangi Nallah, resulting in the death of Kuljit Singh Sachdev deceased. The said claim petition was filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, impleading Raj Pal Singh driver as respondent No.1 and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (insurer of the said vehicle) as respondent No.2, while Citi Bank, New Delhi was impleaded as respondent No.3. In column No. 15 it was alleged that the vehicle in question was owned by the deceased i.e. Kuljit Singh Sachdev. It was also added that respondent No. 3 (Citi Bank) was also "insured/owner", whereas in column No. 16 of the claim petition it was alleged that respondent No.2 was the insurer of the said vehicle. Furthermore, Mrs. Inderjit Kaur deceased was impleaded as respondent No.4, being one of the legal representative of the deceased. 3. Respondent No.1 Raj Pal Singh, driver filed the written statement, admitting the claim of the claimants and alleging therein that liability for payment of compensation was of the insurer respondent No.2, who had to make the payment, since the vehicle was comprehensively insured. 3. Respondent No.1 Raj Pal Singh, driver filed the written statement, admitting the claim of the claimants and alleging therein that liability for payment of compensation was of the insurer respondent No.2, who had to make the payment, since the vehicle was comprehensively insured. However, it was denied that he was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently or that the accident took place due to his fault. In the separate written reply filed by Insurance Company respondent No.2, various defences as are available were taken and it was alleged that there was no privity of contract between the claimants and the answering respondent and as such the claimants were not entitled to claim any compensation from the answering respondent. It was alleged that infact the deceased, being the owner of the offending vehicle, was not covered under the insurance policy. It was alleged that the replying respondent was not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants and accordingly it was prayed that the claim petition be dismissed. No written statement was filed on behalf of respondent No.3 Citi Bank. 4. On the pleadings of the parties various issues were framed, including issue No.2 as to whether the petition against respondent No.2 Insurance Company was not legally maintainable, as alleged in the preliminary objections. 5. After hearing both sides and perusing the records, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal held that the onus on issue No.2 was on the respondent Insurance Company and the Insurance Company had failed to discharge the said onus by adducing any cogent and plausible evidence and as such it was held that the claim petition was legally maintainable against respondent No.2 Insurance Company. Resultantly, the tribunal passed the award in favour of the claimants, awarding a sum of Rs.8,40,000/- lacs against respondent No.2 Insurance Company along with interest. Aggrieved against the said award passed by the tribunal, the appellant Insurance Company filed the present appeal in this Court. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records carefully. 6. Aggrieved against the said award passed by the tribunal, the appellant Insurance Company filed the present appeal in this Court. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records carefully. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant Insurance Company submitted before me that Kuljit Singh Sachdev deceased was the owner of the offending vehicle and he himself was travelling in the said vehicle, which was being driven by his driver Raj Pal Singh and as such the appellant Insurance Company was not liable to pay the compensation amount to the claimants, who are the legal heirs of Kuljit Singh Sachdev deceased. Reliance has been placed on the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in the case Dhan Raj vs. New India Assurance Co. Lid. and another, (2004) 8 SCC 553. On the other hand, the teamed counsel appearing for the claimants submitted before me that the vehicle was on hire purchase agreement with the Citi Bank New Delhi and as such the Citi Bank would be deemed to be the owner of the vehicle and as such the claimants were entitled to claim the compensation amount from the appellant Insurance Company, in respect of the death of Kuljit Singh Sachdev deceased who was travelling in the vehicle in question at the time of accident. Reliance has been placed on the law laid down by a Single Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in FAO No. 128 of 1968 M/s Tulsi Ram Om Parkash Financers vs. Pritam Singh etc, decided on March 31.1971. Reliance has also been placed on the law laid down by a Division Bench of the Punjab High Court in the case reported as New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Moti Ram and others, 1967 A.CJ.312. 7. After hearing the learned counsel and perusing the records, in my opinion, there is considerable force in the submissions made before me by the learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company. 8 In Dhan Rajs case (supra) it was held by the Honble Supreme Court that the liability of the Insurance Company is only for the purpose of indemnifying the insured against liabilities incurred towards a third person or in respect of damages to property and that where the insured i.e. the owner of the vehicle had no liability to a third party, the Insurance Company had no liability. In the reported case it had nowhere been shown that the policy covered any risk for injuries to the owner himself. Under these circumstances, the Honble Supreme Court declined to interfere with the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh vide which it was held that the Insurance Company was not liable to pay compensation to the owner who was injured in a motor vehicular accident while travelling in the vehicle owned by him. The Honble Supreme Court had placed reliance on the law Said down by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Sunita Rathi (1998) 1 SCC 365. The law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in Dhan Rajs case (supra) was followed by this court in the case The New India Assurance Company vs. Smt. Shakuntla Devi and others, FAO No. 385 of 2000, decided on 7.9.2005 and it was held that if a co-owner was travelling in the vehicle and the said vehicle met with an accident resulting in his death, his legal heirs would not be entitled to claim compensation from the Insurance Company. It was further held that merely because the deceased was a co-owner and not the sole owner of the vehicle would not make any difference, keeping in view the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court above mentioned authorities that the Motor Vehicles Act did not require the Insurance Company to compulsorily cover the risk to the insured person who is owner of the vehicle. Similar view was taken by this Court in the case United India Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Smt. Chander Prabha Bhatt and others bearing FAO (MVA) No. 328 of 1995, decided on 28.3.2005. 9. So far as the plea taken by the learned counsel appearing for the claimants respondents that the Citi Bank was the owner of the vehicle and as such the claimants are entitled to claim the compensation amount from the appellant Insurance Company for the death of Kuljit Singh Sachdev deceased, is concerned, in my opinion, there is no merit in this submission of the learned counsel for the claimants respondents. Except alleging in column No. 15 of the claim petition that the vehicle in question was owned by Kuljit Singh Sachdev deceased and also mentioning therein that respondent No.3 (Citi Bank) was also "insured/owner", no evidence has been led by the claimants to show as to in what manner the Citi Bank was also insured/owner of the vehicle in question. Merely because in the insurance policy Ex. PB there is a reference about hypothecation with Citi Bank, in my opinion, it could not be said that the claimants were entitled to claim compensation from the appellant Insurance Company, especially when nothing has come on the record to show as to what were the terms of the said agreement and who was recorded as registered owner of the offending vehicle in the Registration records. The oral testimony of PW-2 Smt. Avtar Sachdev claimant that the vehicle was financed by Citi Bank respondent No.3 and that under the policy of insurance respondent No.3 Citi Bank was covered being financer and owner of the vehicle, in my opinion, would be no consequence, keeping in view the insurance policy Ext. PB produced by PW-2 Smt. Avtar Sachdev claimant herself A perusal of Insurance policy Ex. PB would clearly show that infact Kuljit Singh Sachdev deceased was recorded as the insured of the offending vehicle and there is a reference that the said vehicle was hypothecated with the vehicle and there is a reference that the said vehicle was hypothecated with the Citi Bank, New Delhi. It is not a case where there is anything on the record to show that there was any hire purchase agreement with Citi Bank or that the Citi Bank was recorded as a registered owner of the vehicle in question with registration authorities. However, as referred to above, in the insurance policy Ex. PB Kuljit Singh Sachdev deceased had been recorded as the insured and not the Citi Bank, as alleged by PW-2 Smt. Avtar Sachdev claimant, in fact, during cross-examination it was admitted by PW-2 Smt. Avtar Sachdev, claimant that the vehicle in question was insured in the name of her husband. She deposited that she had not brought the documents regarding fitness certificate of the vehicle and registration certificate of the vehicle. She deposited that she had not brought the documents regarding fitness certificate of the vehicle and registration certificate of the vehicle. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, it would be clear that Kuljit Singh Sachdev deceased himself was the insured and admittedly being the owner of the offending vehicle, his legal representatives would not be entitled to claim any compensation from the appellant Insurance Company for the death of Kuljit Singh Sachdev deceased while travelling in the said vehicle which was owned by him. The law laid down by Punjab and Haryana High Court in M/s Tulsi Ram Om Parkash Financiers case (supra) would be of no relevance to the facts of the present case. Similarly, the law laid down by a Division Bench of Punjab High Court in 1967 A.C.J. 312 (supra) would also not apply to the facts of the present case 10. In view of the detailed discussion above, in my opinion, the appellant Insurance Company could not be held liable to pay the compensation amount to the claimants. Accordingly the present appeal is allowed, the award dated 30.9.1994 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is set aside and it is held that the appellant Insurance Company would not be liable to pay amount of compensation to the claimants, for the death of Kuljit Singh Sachdev deceased.