Recently, the Jharkhand High Court modified the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palamau at Daltonganj, allowing compensation of Rs. 2,00,000 to the appellants along with 7.5% annual interest. The Court held that the deceased, as a driver of the insured vehicle, was covered under the insurance policy’s owner-driver clause, entitling his legal heirs to compensation.
Brief Facts:
The appellants, legal heirs of the deceased Asmuddin Ansari, filed a compensation claim under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking Rs. 13,20,000 plus additional amounts for mental shock, agony, and other expenses. The deceased, a truck driver employed by respondent no. 1, died in an accident on February 11, 2019, when he lost control of the vehicle and collided with a tree. The claim was dismissed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal on the grounds that the accident was due to the deceased’s own negligence. Aggrieved by this decision, the appellants approached the High Court.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Sheo Kumar Singh, argued that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim solely on the basis of alleged negligence. He submitted that under Section 163-A, the claim is structured on a no-fault liability basis, and negligence is irrelevant. The counsel further relied on Ramkhiladi & Anr. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2020) 2 SCC 550 to assert that the insurance policy provided coverage under the personal accident (PA) clause for the owner-driver, and since the deceased was driving the insured vehicle, he effectively stepped into the shoes of the owner, making his legal heirs entitled to compensation.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel for the insurance company, opposed the claim, arguing that since the accident resulted from the deceased’s own negligence, no compensation was payable under Section 163-A. He relied on Nishan Singh & Ors. v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2018) and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Vinod (2016) 4 TAC 449 (Ker), contending that when the driver is solely responsible for the accident, no compensation can be awarded under this provision. He further argued that the PA coverage was limited to the owner and did not extend to the employed driver.
Observations of the Court:
The Court, presided over by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, found merit in the appellants’ claim. It observed that the Tribunal had dismissed the claim without properly considering that the PA cover extended to the owner-driver, which, in the absence of contrary policy terms, could be interpreted to include the driver of the insured vehicle. The Court pointed out that a mere loss of control over the vehicle does not necessarily establish rash or negligent driving, as mechanical failure or unforeseen circumstances could have contributed to the accident.
The Court also scrutinized the insurance policy, confirming that it provided PA cover of Rs. 2,00,000 under Section III for the owner-driver. Citing Ramkhiladi & Anr. (supra), the Court held that in such cases, the driver effectively steps into the shoes of the owner and is entitled to the compensation specified in the policy. The Court distinguished the cases relied upon by the insurance company, noting that they involved contributory negligence, which was not proven in the present case.
The Court further emphasized that insurance policies should be interpreted in favor of the insured when ambiguity exists. Given the policy’s PA cover clause and the absence of any explicit exclusion for drivers employed by the owner, the Court concluded that the deceased was entitled to the benefits of the policy.
The decision of the Court:
The Court modified the Tribunal’s award and directed the insurance company to pay Rs. 2,00,000 along with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of application. The amount was to be paid within eight weeks. However, the Court left the issue of recovery open for the insurance company, allowing it to take appropriate action against the vehicle owner, if necessary.
Case Title: Kuraisa Bibi & Ors. v. Pushpa Devi Gupta & Anr.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Case No.:M.A. No. 04 of 2024
Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. Sheo Kumar Singh, Advocate
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Alok Lal, Advocate (Insurance Company); Mr. P.C. Sinha, Advocate (Owner)
