Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1504 (RAJ)

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Prem

2018-07-17

ARUN BHANSALI

body2018
JUDGMENT : Arun Bhansali, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 4.7.2014 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sojat, District Pali, whereby the respondent insurance company has been directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000 with interest at the rate of 10 per cent per annum from the date of compensation application till date of actual payment. 2. The application for compensation was filed under section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') pertaining to death of one Ramesh Kumar. It was, inter alia, indicated that Ramesh Kumar was driving the motor cycle No. RJ 22-SL 9038, which met with an accident with unknown vehicle, got injured and succumbed to the injuries. It was the case of the claimants that though the vehicle in question belongs to Pappu Ram, deceased Ramesh Kumar, his brother has borrowed the motor cycle from him and was riding the motor cycle at the time of accident. The insurance company disputed its liability based on the fact that as the deceased has used the vehicle as owner at the time of accident, the application for compensation under section 163-A of the Act was not maintainable and the insurance company was not liable for payment of compensation. 3. The Tribunal after dealing with the issue raised by the appellant insurance company, held in favour of the insurance company, however, after noticing that the insurance company has charged extra premium of Rs. 50 for the loss or injury to the owner or his authorised person travelling by the vehicle, awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- in terms of the limit of liability as indicated in the cover note along with interest as noticed hereinbefore. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant insurance company that the Tribunal was not justified in awarding compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-, inasmuch as, the liability assumed by the appellant insurance company was restricted to the owner of the vehicle, which has been defined as the registered owner as per India Motor Tariff ('IMT") and as admittedly, the deceased was not the registered owner of the vehicle, the award of compensation is not justified and, therefore, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. 5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the material available on record. 6. 5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the material available on record. 6. The submissions made by the appellant insurance company are contradictory in nature. On the one hand, submission has been made that as the vehicle in question was borrowed by the deceased, he stepped into the shoes of the owner and based on said submission, the substantive application under section 163-A of the Act has been rejected by the Tribunal. However, when based on the condition regarding assuming of the additional liability for loss or injury to the owner of the vehicle is concerned, the insurance company is now seeking to argue that the deceased was not the owner, which submission cannot be countenanced. If the deceased has been treated as owner for one purpose, the insurance company cannot be heard to contend otherwise for payment of compensation in terms of the liability assumed by appellant insurance company for the injury suffered by the owner. 7. So far as the submission pertaining to the stipulation in the IMT is concerned, a perusal of the IMT reveals that the said IMT nowhere indicates that in case a person borrows the vehicle from the owner, he would step into the shoes of the owner and would not be entitled for claiming compensation. In view thereof, as despite lack of stipulation in IMT, in view of the general law the borrower has been treated as owner, the stipulation in this regard made in the IMT cannot be utilised to negate the said principle, which has been utilised by the insurance company for its own benefit. 8. In view of the above discussion, the submission made with regard to the award passed by the Tribunal in the present appeal has no substance and the appeal is, therefore, dismissed.