Delhi High Court
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Ram Bai & Ors on 30 October, 2019
KAMLESH KUMAR
06.11.2019 12:30
$~2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Decided on: 30.10.2019
+ MAC.APP. 1064/2013
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth, Advocate.
versus
RAM BAI & ORS ..... Respondents
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
NAJMI WAZIRI, J (Oral)
1. This appeal impugns the award of compensation dated 21.09.2013
passed by the learned MACT in Suit No. 11/2012 on the ground that the
insurance company is not liable to pay compensation as the offending
vehicle was insured only for the "site risk" and not for „transit risk‟ and it
did not cover the risk apropos third party.
2. The impugned order has dealt with the issue as under:
"ii) It is stated by respondent no.2/owner of
offending vehicle that since they have insured the
offending vehicle with respondent no.3/ National
Insurance Company Ltd., respondent no.3 is liable for
the payment of compensation.
It is stated by respondent no.3/National
Insurance Co. that they are not liable for the payment
as offending vehicle was insured only for the site and
offending vehicle was not insured for 'transit risk' and
placed on record Insurance Cover Note containing
condition no. (h) of 'Exceptions clause' which says that
"The Company shall not be liable under this policy in
respect of-..... (h) loss or damage whilst in transit, from
one location to another location. (Public Liability will
not be payable while Contractors Plant & Machineries
are on Public Roads)." Respondent no.3 stated that
since the offending vehicle was on transit, they are not
liable to pay claim in view of condition (h) of
Exceptions clause of Insurance Cover Note. On the
other hand, petitioners as well as respondent no.2
submitted that insurance includes the third party
insurance and hence, only respondent no.3 is liable to
pay the claim and cited Surendra Kumar & Ors. vs.
Abdul Salim and Ann 2011 ACJ 1860 wherein it was
held that confining the liability of insurance company
to the extent of Rs.50,000/- is bad as liability of
insurance company against third party is unlimited.
R2W1 Sh. Amit Kumar Chattarjee, Development
Officer, National Ins. Co. in examination-in-chief
deposed that interim protection note Ex.R2W1/A is for
the comprehensive policy of the entire mobile
machinery plant. However, in cross-examination, he
admitted that in the protection note at point PX it is
written as Basic+third party.
In view of above, I am of the considered opinion
that since petitioners/claimants are third party,
respondent no.3 is liable to pay the
claim/compensation/award."
3. The policy at page 43 of the paperbook is titled as „Contractors Plant
and Machinery Insurance‟. The Court would note that the insured vehicle
was an Ashok Leyland 2516 Truck which could be moved from one site to
the other. It is a motor vehicle.
4. The accident happened on the road. The insurance company has
admitted that the policy covered basic and third party risk. The victims of
the accident were a third-party therefore the insurer would be liable to pay
the loss.
5. The next argument is apropos the quantum of compensation awarded.
The deceased was 59 years of age at the time of the motor vehicular accident
and he was considered as self-employed and earning Rs. 8,000/- per month,
on it an addition of 50% was granted as compensation towards „loss of
future prospects‟; whereas in terms of the dicta of the Supreme Court in
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors., (2017) 16 SCC 680,
the same ought to have been granted @ 10% for a person presumed to be
self-employed and falling in the age bracket of 50 to 60 years. Accordingly,
the award of pecuniary compensation shall be computed as under, alongwith
interest accrued in terms of the impugned order:
Rs. 8,000 (monthly income of deceased) x 12 (months) x 9
(multiplier) x 75/100 (1/4th deduction towards personal expenses) x 110/100
(loss of future prospects) = Rs. 7,12,800/-.
6. Excess amounts, as may be, alongwith interest accrued thereon, shall
be refunded to the appellant.
7. Since the appellant has succeeded partially, the statutory amount,
alongwith interest accrued thereon, shall be returned to the appellant.
8. The appeal is disposed-off in the above terms.
NAJMI WAZIRI, J
OCTOBER 30, 2019
AB
