Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 922 (PAT)

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Urmila Devi

2013-08-01

JYOTI SARAN

body2013
ORDER Reg: I.A. No. 3247 of 2011 This interlocutory application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed for condonation of delay of three days in filing the appeal. 2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the statement made in the application, the prayer is allowed. Delay is condoned. I.A. No. 3247 of 2011 stands disposed of. Reg: M.A. No. 806 of 2010 3. Heard Mr. Harendra Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Satya Prakash Sinha, appearing for the claimant respondent nos. 1 to 5. 4. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) is directed against the judgment and award dated 11.06.2010 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge-3rd–cum-Motor Vehicles Accident Claim Tribunal, Vaishali at Hajipur in Case No. 84 of 2002, whereby the claim set up by the claimants under Section 140 of the Act has been allowed. 5. The facts of the present case is in a very narrow compass. The deceased happens to be the owner of the truck which met with an accident resulting in his death. The tribunal while considering the prayer made by the claimants under Section 140 of the Act, has allowed the same following the principles of no fault liability. 6. I have heard Mr. Harendra Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-insurance company and Mr. Satya Prakash Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the claimant-respondent nos. 1 to 5. 7. Two issues have been raised by Mr. Kumar to contest the claim, namely, that the award under Section 140 of the Act is to be satisfied by the owner of the vehicle himself subject to final adjudication in the proceedings under Section 166 of the Act and secondly that the deceased himself being the owner, he was not covered under the policy and thus was not entitled to any compensation. An additional issue of driving licence has also been raised by learned counsel. 8. Mr. Kumar in support of submission has relied upon the policy enclosed at Annexure-1 and which manifests that the policy apart from covering third party risk also covers the driver as well as the owner and representative of the goods as per the statutes. He thus submits that since the policy does not cover the owner of the vehicle hence the award becomes unsustainable. Mr. He thus submits that since the policy does not cover the owner of the vehicle hence the award becomes unsustainable. Mr. Kumar in support of his submission has relied upon the following judgments of the Supreme Court: (a) AIR 2010 SC 490 (b) AIR 2007 SC 1563 (National Insurance Co. ltd. Vs. Laxmi Narain Dhut) (c) AIR 2004 SC 4767 (Dhanraj Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.) 9. The legal position as advanced by Mr. Kumar has not been answered by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimant-respondents. In fact Mr. Sinha appearing for the claimants also does admit that no claim under Section 166 was set up by the claimants. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and I have perused the materials on record. That the owner of the vehicle is not covered under the policy is a matter of record and this legal position could not be contested by Mr. Sinha. 11. The statutory provisions underlying Section 140 requires the owner to make payment of the interim award which may be indemnified under Section 149 of the Act but the relevant aspect in the present case is that the policy does not cover the owner of the vehicle. Even if the interim award passed under Section 140 of the Act is based upon no fault liability yet the determination of liability is foremost and cannot be ignored nor can be said to be irrelevant in deciding such issue. However since in the present case the owner of the vehicle is not covered under the policy, hence no question of payment of compensation under the statutory provisions of Section 140 of the Act, arises. 12. For the reasons aforesaid, the judgment and award impugned cannot be upheld and is accordingly set aside. This appeal is allowed. Let the statutory amount deposited by the insurance company be remitted to them in accordance with law.