Anjana Sharma & Ors. vs Oriental Insurance Co.
2010 Latest Caselaw 2078 Del

           *          IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


                                                    Date of Order: April 20, 2010
+ MAC. APPEAL 330/2008
%
                                                                  20.04.2010

        ANJANA SHARMA & ORS                                     ...Appellants
        Through: Nemo

        Versus

        ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.                                  ...Respondents

Through: Mr. S.L. Gupta, Adv.

JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the reporter or not?

3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?

ORAL

1. By the present appeal, the appellant has assailed the award dated 14 th

February, 2007 whereby the claim petition filed by the appellant claiming

compensation under section 163A M.V. Act was dismissed.

2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this appeal are that

deceased Mohan Lal Sharma was owner of car bearing No. D1-8CV-5541. This

car was hired by some persons for going to Ajmer and Mr. Mohan Lal Sharma

himself took out the car on 13rd April, 2000. Whereabouts of Mohan Lal Sharma

could not be traced till 20th April, 2000, so his wife lodged a complaint under

section 365 of IPC with Shakarpur Police Station on that day. Later on, it was

revealed that Mohan Lal Sharma was kidnapped and murdered by the

passengers who had hired the car.

3. Wife of Mohan Lal Sharma filed a claim petition before MACT on the basis

MAC APP 330 of 2008 page 1 Of 3 that Mohan Lal Sharma had obtained an insurance policy which was alive at the

time of the incident. The claim petition was opposed by the insurance company/

respondent on the ground that Mohan Lal Sharma had not died in an accident

involving the insured vehicle. He was owner of the vehicle and was himself

driving the vehicle at the time of incident, so claim petition was not

maintainable.

4. Before the trial court, the claimant wife examined herself as PW-1 and no

other witness was examined. The learned Tribunal came to conclusion that FIR

about kidnapping of Mohan Lal Sharma was lodged by his wife on 20 th April,

2000 and later investigation revealed that Mohan Lal Sharma was murdered by

the persons who had hired the car. The Tribunal observed that there were two

reasons for denying the claim, one that deceased himself was owner of the car,

and the second that the policy on the basis of which the claim petition was filed

did not cover the risk to the life of owner. The car was a private car. It was

insured for damage to the car and liability to the public and liability to the

driver/workman. No premium was collected from Mohan Lal Sharma for the risk

to the life of Mohan Lal Sharma or for the life of the owner of the vehicle. The

claim petition was not in respect of third party and was not covered by the

insurance policy.

5. The appeal has been preferred on the ground that death of Mohan Lal

Sharma squarely falls within the words "death due to accident arising out of the

use of Motor Vehicle" as mentioned in section 163 A (1) of the Act. It is stated

that in the absence of definition of the word "accident" in Motor Vehicles Act, a

liberal interpretation should be given to the word "accident" and the purpose

under the policy should be enlarged to the victims of such an incident as

happened in this case. It is stated that third party also included owner of the

MAC APP 330 of 2008 page 2 Of 3 vehicle and the Tribunal failed to appreciate that the vehicle was insured

comprehensively at the relevant time.

6. I consider that the interpretation and meaning of word "accident" cannot

be stretched to such an extent that it includes a murder. A person who is owner

of the vehicle and is driving the vehicle may be murdered while driving the car

or sitting in the car. Comprehensive insurance policy obtained by the car owner

covering the risk of damage to the car on accident or covering risk to the third

party involving the car in an accident would not cover the risk to the life of

insurer at the hands of a murderer. I, therefore, find no force in this appeal. The

appeal is therefore dismissed.

April 20, 2010                                   SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA J.
acm




MAC APP 330 of 2008                                                   page 3 Of 3