1906 FA 574/2006 1 Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR.
FIRST APPEAL NO. 574/2006
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Divisional Office, Rayat Haweli,
Old Cotton Market, Akola, through
The Divisional Manager,
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Kanoria House, Palm Road,
Civil Lines, Nagpur. APPELLANT
.....VERSUS.....
1] Smt. Savita wd/o Kailas Kokate,
Aged 30 years, Occu: Household,
2] Ku. Priya d/o Kailas Kokate,
Aged 10 years, Occu: Education,
3] Manoj @ Vaibhav s/o Kailas Kokate,
Aged 9 years, Occu: Education,
4] Kum. Ritu d/o Kailas Kokate,
Aged 5 years.
Resp. Nos.2 to 4 being minors,
through their natural guardian mother,
respondent no.1.
5] Shri Vishwanath Pandhari Kokate (deleted)
6] Smt. Kamini w/o Vishwanath Kokate,
Aged 53 years, Occu: Household,
All R/o. Babhulgaon, Tah. Telhara,
Distt. Akola.
::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:40:31 :::
1906 FA 574/2006 2 Judgment
7] Shri Ashok Sakharam Pargharmor,
Age : Adult, Occu: Agriculturist,
8] Shri Samadhan Dnyandeo Pande,
Age : Adult, Occu: Agriculturist,
Both R/o. Talegaon Babhulgaon,
Tah. Telhara, Distt. Akola. RESPONDE
NTS
Shri Ashish W. Paunikar, counsel for the appellant.
Shri A.B. Mirza, counsel for respondent nos.1 to 6.
CORAM : DR. SMT. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.
DATE : JUNE 19, 2017. ORAL JUDGMENT :
The issue raised for consideration in this appeal is whether the claimants, who are the legal heirs of the deceased and who have filed the application for compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter will be referred to as "Act" for convenience) and having availed an interim benefit under Section 140 of the Act, are entitled to compensation finally under Section 163(A) of the Act, that too by the Tribunal suo moto converting the application filed under Section 166 to Section 163(A) of the Act. ::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:40:31 :::
1906 FA 574/2006 3 Judgment 2] For deciding this legal issue, the factual matrix of the
appeal, which is necessary to know, can be stated as follows :-
Deceased Kailas was the husband of respondent no.1, father of respondent nos.2 to 4 and son of respondent no.5. On 09/12/2003, he was proceeding as pillion rider on motorcycle, bearing no. MH-30-D-7740, driven by respondent no.7 and owned by respondent no.8. The said motorcycle was insured with the appellant. One white colour Jeep coming from opposite direction, driven in high speed and in rash and negligent manner, gave dash to his motorcycle, thereby causing the accidental death of Kailas. The said Jeep fled away from the spot after the accident and could not be traced. F.I.R. came to be registered against the driver of the said unidentified white colour Jeep. Even police could not trace the said Jeep in the course of investigation.
3] At the time of accident, deceased Kailas was running the age of 30 years and on account of his untimely death, as respondents lost their only source of income, they preferred the Claim Petition No. 77/2005 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Akot, claiming the compensation from appellant and ::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:40:31 ::: 1906 FA 574/2006 4 Judgment respondent nos.7 and 8 contending inter alia that respndent nos.1 to 5 have lost their only source of income and emotional support. Hence considering the age of deceased and the income, which he was earning from agriculture to the tune of Rs.120/- per day, they were entitled to get compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. 4] This claim petition came to be resisted by respondent nos.7 and 8 and also by appellant, submitting that the sole cause of the accident was rash and negligent driving of the Jeep and hence they were not liable to pay any amount of compensation to the claimants.
5] As regards the appellant, it was further contended that though the motorcycle on which the deceased was riding as pillion seater was insured with appellant, however, it was not insured under a comprehensive policy but under an Act only policy, therefore, liability of the pillion rider being not covered thereunder, as the extra premium was not paid by the owner of the motorcycle, the claim against the insurance company was not tenable. Hence, appellant-insurance company needs to be absolved, from joint and ::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:40:31 ::: 1906 FA 574/2006 5 Judgment several liability to pay compensation to the claimants. 6] In view of the rival pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues at Exh.29. In support of her claim, the respondent no.1, the claimant examined herself and produced on record the relevant documentary evidence, like, the copy of F.I.R. (Exh.31), spot panchmama (Exh.32) and post mortem notes (Exh.34).
7] On appreciation of the evidence led on record, the Tribunal was pleased to hold that the cause of the accident was clearly proved to be the rash and negligent driving of the unidentified Jeep. As the driver, owner and insurance company of the said Jeep could not be traced, they were not added as respondents in the petition, though it was necessary for the claimants to do so. Hence, the Tribunal then on it's own, suo motu converted the claim petition from Section 166 to Section 163-A of the Act, and awarded compensation amount to the tune of Rs.1,64,000/- to be paid by appellant and respondent nos.7 and 8 to the claimants jointly and severally.
::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:40:31 :::
1906 FA 574/2006 6 Judgment 8] Perusal of the impugned judgment and order of the
Tribunal reveals that the contention raised by learned counsel for appellant herein that as the policy was Act only policy, the insurance company will not be liable to pay the compensation for death of a pillion rider on the motorcycle, was rejected by the Tribunal relying upon the judgment of this Court in Ajay -Vs- Avinash, 2004 (2) Mh.L.J. 725, wherein it was held as follows :-
"In Section 147 of the M.V. Act, 1988, there is no limit in certain cases as contained in Clause (ii) of the old Act. The corresponding provisions in the old Act contain 3 clauses whereas now there are only two clauses. What was dropped in the new Act is the Clause which excluded the coverage for death or bodily injury to person carryied in or upon the vehicle. That means such a liability cannot be now excluded from the policy. Therefore when the policy of insurance is an "Act Policy" the insurance company will not stand absolved from the liability in respect of the pillion rider of the motorcycle. The petitioner pillion rider who fell down from the motorcycle and sustained injury would not thereore, be denied the compensation u/s 140 by the Insurance Company. The order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in so far it rejects the claim against the Insurance Company is hence set aside. The Insurance Company is liable to pay the amount of interim award u/s 140 of the M.V. Act, 1988 with interest @ 9% p.a. till the date of realisation."
9] Relying upon the ratio laid down in the abovesaid ::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:40:31 ::: 1906 FA 574/2006 7 Judgment ruling, it was held by the Tribunal that appellant-insurance company will not stand absolved from the liability in respect of the pillion rider of the motorcycle. It was further held that as the claim now needs to be converted to Section 163(A) of the Act, non-joinder of the owner, driver and insurance company of the Jeep would not cause any impediment in claiming the compensation. 10] This judgment of the Tribunal is rightly challenged in this appeal by learned counsel for appellant in view of the legal position, which is crystalized in various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to the effect that in case of Act policy, the liability of the insurance company stands absolved in case of the death of the pillion rider, who is not a third party. Moreover the law is also clear to the effect that claimants in such cases, at the most can be entitled to compensation under Section 140 of the Act for no fault liability but neither under Section 166 or Section 163 which deal with fault liability. In the judgment of this court also, on which Tribunal has placed reliance, the claimants were held entitled for compensation from insurance company only to the extent of "no fault liability" under Section 140 of the Act. The insurance company was ::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:40:31 ::: 1906 FA 574/2006 8 Judgment accordingly held liable to pay the amount of interim award under Section 140 of the Act. However, if the claimants have already availed the benefit entitled under Section 140 of the Act as in the present case, by filing petition under Section 166 of the Act, such petition cannot be converted to Section 163-A of the Act as the liability under Section 163-A of the Act is also fault liability. 11] In this case, it is an admitted factual position that deceased Kailas was pillion rider. Not only claimant no.1 admitted this fact, but even respondent no.7, the owner and respondent no.8, the driver have also admitted the fact that deceased Kailas was pillion rider at the time of accident of the motorcycle. The copy of the F.I.R. (Exh.31) filed in the case is also more than sufficient to further confirm that deceased Kailas was sitting as pillion rider on the said motorcycle at the time of accident. In such situation, when the policy is Act policy and not a comprehensive policy, then the liability of insurance company, either under Section 166 or under Section 163-A of the Act stands absolved as regards the death of pillion rider, in view of the legal position discussed in the case of Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. - Vs-
Sudhakaran K.V., 2008 ACJ ::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:40:31 ::: 1906 FA 574/2006 9 Judgment 2045(SC). In this case the Two Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court, while dealing with the issue whether a pillion rider on a scooter would be a "third party" within the meaning of Section 147 of the Act, after referring to number of its earlier decisions, held in para no.16 as follows :-
"(16) The contract of insurance did not cover the owner of the vehicle, certainly not the pillion rider. The deceased was travelling as a passenger, stricto sensu may not be as a gratuitious passenger as in a given case she may not be a member of the family, a friend or other relative. In the sense of the term which is used in common parlance, she might not be even a passenger. In view of the terms of the contract of insurance, however she would not be covered thereby."
In para no.19, it was held that, "The law which emerges is that the liability of the insurance company in a case of this nature is not extended to a pillion rider of the motorcycle unless the requisite amount of premium is paid for covering his/her risk". It was further held that, "The legal obligation arising under Section 147 of the Act cannot be extended to an injury or death of the owner of the vehicle or the pillion rider, and the pillion rider in a two wheeler was not to be treated as a third party when ::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:40:31 ::: 1906 FA 574/2006 10 Judgment the accident has taken place owing to rash and negligent riding of scooter and not on the part of driver of another vehicle".
12] The same legal position was reiterated in subsequent decision of National Insurance Co. Ltd. -Vs- Balkrishnan and another, 2013 ACJ 199 (SC). Here in the case, having regard to the admitted factual position that deceased was the pillion rider, his liability cannot stand covered under the Act policy, either under Section 163-A or under Section 166 of the Act which deal with fault liability. His liability would have been covered by the insurance policy of the offending vehicle, the Jeep, as the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Jeep driver. However as the Jeep or its driver or owner were not identified, claimants could not join them or their insurer. Though it is an unfortunate fact, the insurance company of the motorcycle on which deceased was proceeding as a pillion rider, cannot be held liable to compensate his legal heirs, when it was only Act policy and deceased was not a "third party".
13] The next question arising for consideration is whether
::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:40:31 :::
1906 FA 574/2006 11 Judgment
Tribunal could have converted this petition filed by the claimants under Section 166 to Section 163-A of the Act? In this respect also, the legal position is fairly well settled by the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Deepal Girishbhai Soni and others -Vs- United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2004 ACJ 934, wherein it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that "Once amount of compensation is received for No Fault Liability by filing the petition under Section 166 of the Act, application under Section 163-A of the Act, cannot be maintainable".
14] In the decision of our own High Court also, in the case of New India Insurance Co. Ltd. -Vs- Geeta Sadanand Naik and others, 2013 ACJ 1082, the same legal position was reiterated. The facts of the said case were identical to the facts of the present case. In that case also, the claimants had filed an application under Sections 166 and 140 of the Act. They also received the amount for No Fault Liability under Section 140 of the Act. Subsequently they sought conversion of their claim from the one under Section 166 of the Act to that under Section 163-A of the Act. Tribunal allowed the same and awarded the compensation under Section 163-A of the ::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:40:31 ::: 1906 FA 574/2006 12 Judgment Act, directing adjustment of the amount received by the claimants under Section 140 of the Act. In the light of these facts, it was held that Section 163-B of the Act specifically clarifies that claim application can be filed either under Section 140 or under Section 163-A of the Act but not under both. It was further held that "There was no provision under the Act for reducing the amount awarded under Section 140 of the Act from the amount finally awarded under Section 163-A of the Act". While further clarifying the distinction between these two provisions of Section 163-A and Section 140 of the Act, the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to hold in para nos.26 and 27 of its judgment as follows :-
"26. Section 163-B of the Act provides for an option to file claim in certain cases and it says that where a person is entitled to claim compensation under sections 140 and 163-A, he shall file claim under either of the said sections and not under both. The above is a mandatory section. Hence, if a person has filed an application for compensation under section 140 of the Act and has already received the said compensation, then, certainly he cannot maintain the claim petition under section 163-A of the Act. In the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
-Vs- Janabai, 2003 ACJ 350 (Bombay), the learned single Judge of the Aurangabad Bench of our High Court has held that the wording of section 163-B of the Act is very clear and a person cannot claim compensation under sections 140 and 163-A. It has been held that a choice has been given to person to claim compensation under ::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:40:31 ::: 1906 FA 574/2006 13 Judgment either of sections and not both. It has been held that where the Tribunal has awarded compensation under section 140 as well as under section 163-A, award under section 163-A is contrary to statutory provision and, therefore, the award cannot be sustained in law. I fully agree with the above view of the learned single Judge of the Aurangabad Bench of our High Court."
"27. Section 141(1) of the Act crystalises that right to claim compensation under section 140 is in addition to any other right to claim compensation on the principle of fault liability and specifically excludes the right to claim compensation under the scheme referred to in section 163-A. Sub-section (2) of section 141 further provides that if the claimant has filed an application for compensation under section 140 and also in pursuance of any right on the principle of fault liability, the claim for compensation under section 140 is to be disposed of in the first instance and as provided in sub-section (3), the amount received under sub-section (2) of section 140 is to be adjusted while paying the compensation on the principle of fault liability. However, there is no provision in the Act for reducing the amount awarded under section 140 from the amount finally awarded under section 163- A of the Act. On the contrary, section 163-B specifically clarifies that claim petition can be filed either under section 140 or under section 163-A but not under both sections."
Ultimately in para no.28 of the judgment, it was held that "The finding of learned Claims Tribunal to the effect that the claimants are entitled to compensation finally under Section 163-A of the Act after having availed of interim benefit under Section 140 of the Act is erroneous and cannot be sustained".
::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:40:31 :::
1906 FA 574/2006 14 Judgment 15] In this case, admittedly as observed by the Tribunal in
its judgment in para no.16, the claimants were already paid No Fault Liability amount of Rs.50,000/- under Section 140 of the Act. In such circumstances, in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and in the abovesaid authorities of this High Court, the claimants cannot be entitled to get amount under Section 163-A of the Act. In this respect, the Tribunal has committed an error in suo motu converting the petition of the claimants from Section 166 of the Act to Section 163-A of the Act, that too, after the claimants have availed compensation for no fault liability under Section 140 of the Act. Appellant insurance company, in above such circumstances, is, therefore, entitled to get absolved from the liability to pay compensation to the claimants under Section 163-A of the Act. So far as the liability of respondent nos.7 and 8, the driver and owner of the vehicle, is concerned, as they have not approached this Court in order to challenge the award passed against them, this Court need not enter into the aspect of their liability.
16] Appeal, therefore, needs to be allowed for setting aside
::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:40:31 :::
1906 FA 574/2006 15 Judgment
the impugned judgment and award as against the appellant. 17] The impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is thus set aside against the appellant. 18] Appellant is absolved from the joint and several liability of paying compensation to the respondents/ claimants. 19] As amount of compensation is already deposited by appellant in the court, appellant is permitted to withdraw the said amount with interest accrued thereon, if not already withdrawn by the claimants, and if it is already withdrawn by the respondents/claimants, then appellant is entitled and is at liberty to take necessary steps for recovery of the said amount. 20] Appeal stands disposed of in above terms with no order as to costs.
JUDGE Yenurkar ::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 06:40:31 :::