Delhi High Court
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Smt. Raniya @ Rami Devi & Others on 13 July, 2011
Author: Indermeet Kaur
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 13.07.2011
+ MAC APPEAL No. 501/2009
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. ...........Appellant
Through: Mr. L.K. Tyagi, Advocate.
Versus
SMT. RANIYA @ RAMI DEVI & OTHERS ..........Respondents
Through: Mr. Jatinder Kumar, Advocate
for respondents No. 1 & 2.
Mr. Anil Aggarwal, Advocate
for respondent No. 3.
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 The Insurance Company has appealed against the award
dated 09.07.2009. This award had been passed on an application
under Section 163 (A) of the Motor Vehicle Act (MV Act). The
deceased Ramamej had died in an accident which took place on
18.08.2007; he was driving a motorcycle which had collided with
another motorcycle; due to this forceful collision of the two
motorcycles, the deceased Ramamej succumbed to his injuries. He
was 54 years of age and was earning approximately `3,300/- per
month; being an annual income of less than `40,000/- the present
petition under Section 163 A had been preferred. Three issues had
been framed before the learned Tribunal. Evidence had been led.
The medical record and treatment bills of the deceased had been
proved in the testimony of PW-3; PW-1 was the widow of the
deceased. On behalf of the Insurance Company one witness
namely R4W1 had come into the witness box; the insurance policy
had been proved as Ex.R4W1/1.
2 Contention of the Insurance Company was that the company
has no liability to pay compensation as the present petition is a
petition under Section 163 (A) of the MV Act which postulates a
'no fault liability'; the deceased being the driver of the offending
vehicle, he could not be granted any compensation under this
provision of law. Today also before this Court, the same argument
has been urged. It is pointed out that in the judgment of the Apex
Court reported in 2009 (8) Scale 244 Ningamma & Another Vs.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. it has been held that the liability
under Section 163 A of the MV Act is on the owner of the vehicle;
a person cannot be both i.e. the claimant as also a recipient with
respect to the claim. In that case, the deceased was admittedly
not the owner of the motor bike in question; he had borrowed it
from the real owner. The deceased in the instant case was
admittedly not the borrower of the said vehicle; he was an
employee of the owner of the motorcycle which he was driving; he
was a peon employed with M/s BMG Enterprises who was the
insured. The Tribunal had relied upon a judgment of this Court
reported in 3 (2007) ACC 77 New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs.
Rajeshwar Pandey & Others where the vehicle being driven by the
driver had suffered a accident and the deceased having
succumbed to his injuries; the present appeal had been preferred
under Section 163 (A) of the MV Act, it was held that the legal
heirs of the deceased were entitled to compensation. The
insurance policy in the instant case (Ex. R4W1/1) also reveals that
the policy covers the risk of any person including the insured
provided that the person driving a vehicle holds an effective
driving license at the time of accident; it is not the case of the
appellant that the driver/deceased did not have the valid license at
the time of the accident. In this factual scenario when admittedly
the deceased was an employee of the owner, the judgment of the
NIngamma (Supra) which was in a different factual context is
inapplicable.
3 The first argument thus propounded by learned counsel for
the appellant that the legal heirs of driver of the vehicle cannot
claim compensation is thus an argument to be noted only to be
rejected.
4 The second argument propounded by learned counsel for
the appellant is that there should have been apportionment of
liability between the Insurance Company and the owner of the
other offending vehicle. Admittedly no such argument had been
advanced before the Tribunal; no evidence had also been led on
this score. In these circumstances, this argument also merits no
weight.
5 The provisions of Section 163 A of the MV Act had been
incorporated into the statue by the amendment Act 54 of 1994;
this was a special provision for payment of compensation on a
structured formula basis; this provision had been introduced by
the Legislature with an aim to provide an early and expeditious
relief to the legal heirs of the victim where only the involvement of
the vehicle was to be shown; this provision had been incorporated
as a summary provision where no evidence about the negligence
has to be necessarily led or proved. Even otherwise this legislation
i.e. MV Act is a socially benevolent and this should be kept in
mind while dealing with the relief to be granted to the victims
involved in such a fatal or a non-fatal accident. This cannot be lost
sight of.
6 The impugned award in no manner calls for any
interference.
7 Dismissed.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
JULY 13, 2011
a
