Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 2143 (KAR)

Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Thayamma

2020-11-02

NATARAJ RANGASWAMY

body2020
JUDGMENT Nataraj Rangaswamy, J. - This appeal is filed by the insurer challenging the Judgment and Award passed by the Tribunal directing the insurer to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the claimants towards the personal accident cover as per the insurance policy. 2. The claim petition discloses that the deceased who was riding a motor cycle, dashed against a parked lorry. The police filed a charge sheet against the deceased - rider of the motor cycle which abated. The parents of the deceased filed a claim petition under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short hereinafter referred to as MV Act ) claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-. 3. Before the Tribunal, the claimant No.2 was examined as PW1, who marked Exs.P1 to P7, while, an executive of the insurer was examined as RW1, who marked Ex.R1 - insurance policy. The Tribunal noticed that the accident was due to the negligence by the rider of the motor cycle and therefore, the Tribunal felt that the insurer of the motor cycle was not responsible to pay the compensation. Though the claim petition was filed under Section 140 of the MV Act, which entitled the claimants only to a sum of Rs.50,000/-, the Tribunal noticed that the owner - driver of the motor cycle was entitled to a personal accident cover of Rs.1,00,000/-. Therefore, the Tribunal felt it appropriate to pass an award directing the insurer to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- along with interest. It is this Judgment and Award which is challenged by the insurer in this appeal. 4. The learned counsel for the insurer contends that when the petition was filed under Section 140 of the MV Act, the Tribunal could not have gone beyond the provision of Section 140 of the MV Act, by awarding a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the claimants, though the maximum amount that could be awarded is a sum of Rs.50,000/-. He would also contend that the Tribunal had no authority in law for directing the insurance company to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- being the personal accident cover availed by the owner driver. He would also contend that the Tribunal had no authority in law for directing the insurance company to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- being the personal accident cover availed by the owner driver. Learned counsel also contended that the claimants ought to have filed the necessary claim application before the insurer seeking for the personal accident cover and that the insurer would have paid the amount subject to fulfillment of the conditions, such as, the rider possessing the licence to ride the vehicle in question etc.,. 5. It is relevant to note that the Apex Court in the case of Ningamma Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd, (2009) 13 SCC 710 , as well as in the case of Ramkhiladi and another Vs. United India Insurance Company and another, (2020) 2 SCC 550 , while considering a claim petition under Section 163A of the MV Act had held that the deceased driver/rider stepped into the shoes of the owner and therefore, had directed the payment of personal accident cover as per the insurance policy. 6. In the present case too, the owner of the motor cycle is the respondent No.3 herein. The deceased was riding the motor cycle owned by the respondent No.3. In that view of the matter, by adopting the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Ramkhiladi and another, the deceased stepped into the shoes of the respondent No.3 owner of the vehicle in question. Therefore, he is entitled to personal accident cover as agreed under the policy of insurance. 7. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant insurer that the claimants must have made necessary application before the insurer is wholly ill-found, in as much as, the insurer was put on notice soon after the petition under Section 140 of the MV Act was filed. It was the bounden duty of the insurer to pay the personal accident cover amount to the person entitled to. It is too farfetched for the insurer to contend that the claimant must now file necessary application for release of the personal accident cover. 8. The Tribunal had found it appropriate having regard to the social objective of the Motor Vehicles Act, which is to provide succour to the legal representative of the deceased. It is too farfetched for the insurer to contend that the claimant must now file necessary application for release of the personal accident cover. 8. The Tribunal had found it appropriate having regard to the social objective of the Motor Vehicles Act, which is to provide succour to the legal representative of the deceased. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal not withstanding that the petition was filed under Section 140 of the MV Act, had felt it appropriate to direct the insurer to pay personal accident cover of Rs.1,00,000/- to the claimants. 9. I do not find any irregularity or illegality in the Judgment and Award passed by the Tribunal and therefore, this appeal lacks merit and is dismissed. The compensation amount if it is not already paid by the insurer, then it is directed to be deposited within two months. Any amount in deposit before this Court by the insurer shall be transmitted to the Tribunal for further orders.