Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs Urmila & Ors
2012 Latest Caselaw 3178 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                          Reserved on: 17th April, 2012
                                        Pronounced on: 11th May, 2012
+       MAC APP. 273/2010

        ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.       .... Appellant
                     Through: Mr. L.K. Tyagi, Advocate

                    versus

        URMILA & ORS.                              .... Respondents
                             Through:   Nemo.

        CORAM:
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL

                             JUDGMENT

G. P. MITTAL, J.

1. The Appellant Oriental Insurance Company Limited impugns a judgment dated 25.02.2010 whereby a compensation of `9,00,000/- was awarded for the death of Sanjay Kumar, who died in a motor accident which occurred on 25.02.2008.

2. A Claim Petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act (the Act) was filed with the averments, which were not seriously challenged by Respondent No.7, that the deceased Sanjay Kumar who was related and was an employee of Respondent No.7 took the two wheeler No.DL-7SY-3694 for the purpose of carrying out some work assigned by Respondent No.7. The said two wheeler was struck by an unknown vehicle.

The Claims Tribunal made the Appellant (the Insurance Company) liable to pay the compensation holding that under Section 163-A of the Act only two ingredients i.e. involvement of the vehicle in the accident and result of an injury or a death arising out of that accident were required to be proved. That having been proved, it was held that the Insurer (the Appellant) was liable to pay the compensation.

3. It is important to note that irrespective of the fact whether Respondent No.7 was the employer or the relation of the deceased; the deceased himself was driving the two wheeler involved in the accident. It is true that Respondents No.1 to 6 were not required to establish any negligence to be successful in getting the compensation under Section 163-A of the Act and the owner and Insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident are liable to pay the compensation, yet, the policy of insurance is governed by the contract between the Insurer and the Insured. The insurance policy Ex.RW1/1 in respect of the two wheeler DL-7SY-3694 apart from risk of own damage and third party, covers the risk of owner driver (under GR-36A) for personal accident upto a sum of `1,00,000/-. Thus, apart from third party risk, the liability of the Appellant was only with regard to the owner driver i.e. Rakesh Kumar, the registered owner. The Claims Tribunal erred in fastening the liability on the Appellant Insurance Company.

4. The impugned order, therefore, cannot be sustained; the same is accordingly set aside.

5. The case is remanded back to the Claims Tribunal for determining the liability, if any, of Respondent No.7 in accordance with law.

6. The parties are directed to appear before the Claims Tribunal on 01.06.2012.

7. The statutory amount of `25,000/- be refunded to the Appellant Insurance Company.

8. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE MAY 11, 2012 vk