Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 958 (MP)

Gayatri Sahu v. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

2009-08-10

RAJEEV GUPTA, SUNIL KUMAR SINHA

body2009
ORDER Rajeev Gupta, C.J. 1. This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Eighth Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (for short, "the Tribunal") vide award dated 23-3-2006, passed in Claim Case No. 9/2006. 2. As against the compensation of Rs. 19,50,000/- claimed by the appellants/claimants, unfortunate widow and children of deceased Gopalram Sahu by filing a claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act for his death in the motor accident on 13-5-2005, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation to the claimants along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3. Shri JSP Chandrasen, learned Counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-only. 4. Shri Sudhir Agrawal, learned Counsel for the respondent placing reliance on the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Limited v. Rajni Devi and Ors. reported in (2008) 5 SCC 736 , supported the award and contended that as the deceased was owner of the vehicle involved in the accident, the claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act was not maintainable at all and the claimants at the most were entitled to get the amount under the terms of the policy. 5. The claimants filed the claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act for the death of deceased Gopalram Sahu. The claimants themselves pleaded in the claim petition that deceased Gopalram Sahu was coming on his motorcycle bearing registration No. CG 10/13-B/0468 and no other motor vehicle was involved in the accident. 6. The Apex Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Limited v. Rajni Devi (supra), while considering the maintainability of the claim petition by the claimants under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act for the death of the owner of the vehicle himself observed in Paras 11 and 12 as" under: 11. The liability under Section 163-A of the Act is on the owner of the vehicle as a person cannot be both, a claimant as also a recipient. The heirs of Janak Raj could not have maintained a claim in terms of Section 163-A of the Act. For the said purpose, only the terms of the contract of insurance could be taken recourse to. 12. The heirs of Janak Raj could not have maintained a claim in terms of Section 163-A of the Act. For the said purpose, only the terms of the contract of insurance could be taken recourse to. 12. According to the terms of contract of insurance, the liability of the Insurance Company was confined to Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only). It was liable to the said extent and not any sum exceeding the said amount. 7. In view of the above quoted dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Limited v. Rajni Devi (supra), the claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act filed by the claimants for the death of deceased Gopalram Sahu, who was owner of the motorcycle in question was not maintainable and the claimants were entitled to get compensation only in terms of the Insurance Policy. 8. In the present case, it is not in dispute that an extra premium of Rs. 50/- was paid by the deceased for covering his personal risk. In the Insurance Policy, it has been specifically mentioned that PA cover under Section III for owner/driver (CSI) was to the extent of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The claimants, thus, were entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- only, on account of the PA coverage of the deceased by paying extra premium of Rs. 50/-. 9. Since the Tribunal itself has awarded a sum of Rs, 1,00,000/- to the claimants, which is awardable under the terms of Insurance Policy, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 10. The appeal filed by the claimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 11. No order as to costs.