Reena Devi & Ors vs Shyam Sunder & Anr (Iffco-Tokio ...
2015 Latest Caselaw 999 Del

$~1
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                          Date of decision: 3rd February, 2015
+       MAC.APP. 1115/2014
        REENA DEVI & ORS                                 ..... Appellants
                      Through:          Mr. Kunal Rawat, Adv.

                           versus

        SHYAM SUNDER & ANR (IFFCO-TOKIO INSURANCE CO LTD)
                                              ..... Respondents
                    Through: Nemo.

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

G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

1. It is admitted by the learned counsel for the Appellants that in the

instant case, Pappu Kumar, who was owner of the vehicle bearing

no.HR-55E-6367 and was sitting along with the driver of the vehicle

at the time of the unfortunate accident and had suffered serious

injuries, was declared brought dead in the hospital on the same day i.e.

on 29.09.2013.

2. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) referred to

the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in United India

Insurance Company Limited v. Sharapuram Balavva & Ors., 2014 (2)

TAC 364 (AP); as well as the reports of the Supreme Court in Uttar

Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. Kulsum & Ors., 2011

ACJ (SC) 2145; Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v.

Kailash Nath Kothari & Ors., (1997) 7SCC 481; Guru Govekar v.

Filomena F. Lobo & Ors., (1988) ACJ 585; and Dhanraj v. New India

Assurance Company Limited, 2005 ACJ 1 SC and on the basis of the

settled proposition of law, concluded that it is only third party risk

which is liable to be covered under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles

Act, 1988.

3. The Claims Tribunal also noted that even under comprehensive policy,

the risk is covered with regard to own damage to the vehicle and not to

personal injury to the insured. The Claims Tribunal further referred to

the judgment in New India Assurance Company Limited v. Sadanand

Mukhi & Ors. (2009) 2 SCC 417 also.

4. The Claims Tribunal further noted that in the instant case, an

additional premium of Rs.100/- had been paid towards "PA, owner

and driver". However, it was noted that the owner himself was not

driving the vehicle but he was simply accompanying the driver.

5. The coverage of owner/driver as per the tariff was upto to

Rs.2,00,000/- in case the owner was driving the vehicle.

6. The Claims Tribunal noted all the judgments and held that no risk of

deceased Pappu Kumar was covered under the policy. The Claim

Petition was, therefore, rightly dismissed by the Claims Tribunal by

the order dated 23.07.2014.

7. The appeal therefore, has to fail; the same is accordingly dismissed.

8. Pending application also stands disposed of.

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE FEBRUARY 03, 2015 vk