United India Insurance Co.Ltd. vs Smt.Santosh W/O Sh. Raj Kumar & ...
2011 Latest Caselaw 3711 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                              Date of Judgment: 03.08.2011


+                   MAC APPEAL No.516/2010


UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.        ...........Appellant
                  Through: Mr. K.L. Nandwani, Advocate.

                    Versus

SMT.SANTOSH W/O SH. RAJ KUMAR & ORS. ..........Respondents
                  Through: Ms.Sushma, Advocate.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR

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

     2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?             Yes

     3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
                                                          Yes

INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)

1. Learned counsel for the respondent has raised a preliminary

objection on the maintainability of the appeal; it is pointed out

that the permission as envisaged under Section 170 of the MV Act

not having been taken by the appellant, the appeal is not

maintainable. To substantiate her submission, she has placed

reliance on the judgment reported in 146 (2008) DLT 57 National

Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Sulo Devi & Ors. This argument has been

countered by the learned counsel for the appellant. It is pointed

out that the claim of the petitioner/claimants under Section 163 A

of the MV Act had been dismissed; this claim had been awarded

not under the MV Act but in terms of the contract of Insurance

which was between the insurer and the insured. This submission

of the learned counsel for the appellant has force. Provisions of

Section 170 of the MV Act are inapplicable. Appeal is thus

maintainable even in the absence of permission under Section 170

of the M.V.Act.

2. This appeal has impugned the award dated 16.04.2010 vide

which compensation in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- under the head

"compulsory personal accident cover" had been awarded to the

claimants of the deceased Lalit Arora @ Monu.

3. Facts emanating are that the owner of the offending vehicle

i.e. the scooter bearing No. DL-8SS-8201 was Rajesh Arora. The

vehicle on the fateful day i.e. 25.03.2007 was being driven by his

brother of Lalit @ Monu also suffered an accident pursuant to

which he succumbed to his injuries and died. The parents of the

deceased Lalit @ Monu had filed the present claim petition under

Section 163 A of Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as

„the MV Act‟). This petition had been dismissed. The victim being

not an employee of this brother who was the owner of the insured

vehicle, claim under Section 163 A of the MV Act had been

dismissed. The policy Ex. RW2/1A had been scrutinized; the policy

shows that a sum of ` 50 had been paid as premium to the

Insurance Company to get compulsory personal accident cover to

the owner/driver amounting to ` 1 lakh under the head

"compulsory personal accident cover". Admittedly, the claimants

in this case were the parents of deceased Lalit @ Monu; in their

capacity as parents of deceased Lalit @ Monu they had sought

this amount which had accordingly been awarded to them.

Learned counsel for the appellant has disputed this amount and

rightly so. The compulsory personal accident cover was only for

the benefit of the owner/driver as is evident from the policy itself.

It could not have been granted to the legal heirs of the brother of

the owner; awarding this sum of ` 1 lack as personal accident

cover to the LR's of Lalit @ Monu is thus liable to be set aside and

is, accordingly, set aside. Statutory amount deposited be returned.

4. Appeal is allowed.

INDERMEET KAUR, J.

AUGUST 03, 2011 rb