National Insurance Company ... vs Shyam Narayan Kalindi
2021 Latest Caselaw 4235 Jhar

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                             M.A. No. 329 of 2016
                                        ------

National Insurance Company Limited through Its Legal Cell,Ranchi ...Appellant(s).

                                  Versus
           1. Shyam Narayan Kalindi
           2. Lalti Devi
           3. Kunti Devi                              ... Respondent(s)

          CORAM        :     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN.
                             Through: Video Conferencing
                                       ------
          For the Appellant(s)         : Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate.
          For the Respondent           : Mr. Girish Mohan Singh, Advocate

06/17.11.2021: Heard the counsel for the appellant and the counsel for the respondents.

This appeal is at the behest of the Insurance Company. The Insurance company has challenged the award dated 10.02.2016 passed in Compensation Case No. 111 of 2013 passed by District Judge-III-cum-M.A.C.T., Jamshedpur.

Mr. Manish Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company submits that since no premium in respect of passenger / pillion rider was paid by the owner of the motor cycle, the Insurance Company could not have been saddled with the liability to pay the compensation amounts. He submits that the deceased was a pillion rider (not related with the owner) and in absence of non- payment of premium he is not entitled to receive the amount from the Insurance Company and it is the owner of the vehicle who has to satisfy the amount. He further submits that claim under Section 163 A of the M.V Act is not maintainable in the facts of this case as the other offending vehicle was unknown.

Mr. Girish Mohan Singh, learned counsel submits that admittedly the motorcycle which is one of the offending vehicle, was insured with National Insurance Company Ltd. He further submits that the policy which is on record will clearly suggests that the policy was a comprehensive policy as a premium in respect of own damage was paid. He submits that when a premium of own damage is paid the policy becomes comprehensive one. He submits that since the policy was comprehensive, the National Insurance Company was directed to pay the amount. He submits that admittedly the deceased was a pillion rider of the motor cycle and thus deceased being a 3rd party, is entitled to recover the amount from the owner of the motor cycle as the negligence is composite.

From the arguments advance by the parties, I find that there is no dispute in respect of computation of the compensation amount. Further there is no dispute in respect of the manner in which the accident has occurred and the fact that the motor cycle was duly insured with the National Insurance company Ltd. The only ground taken by the appellant-Insurance company is that since pillion rider and the unnamed passenger were not covered in a separate premium, pillion rider was not entitled to receive any amount. During course of argument, I have gone through the Insurance Policy which has been produced by Mr. Manish Kumar, learned counsel with memo of appeal as annexure 1. I find that same document is also in the lower court records. This document is not disputed by any other parties. Mr. Manish Kumar, learned counsel during course of argument fairly submits that as own damage premium has been paid by the owner of the motorcycle, it makes the policy as a comprehensive policy. After going through the said document, I find that Rs. 605 as premium on account of own damage has been paid. So far as the premium in respect of pillion rider is concerned I find that it was optional and only for personal accident purposes and not for any other purposes. This makes the policy a comprehensive policy. When the policy is comprehensive in nature, in view of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. versus Surendra Nath Loomba and others, reported in (2012) 13 SCC 792, Insurance company is liable to indemnify the owner. In this case the deceased was a pillion rider and is not related with the owner of the vehicle. Thus, I find that no illegality has been committed by the Tribunal in passing the impugned judgment/award.

So far as the ground taken by the Insurance Company that this application under Section 163 A of M.V Act is not maintainable, this court is of the view that the said ground cannot succeed on the facts of the instant case as it is not clear as to who is the offending vehicle, as the motorcycle in which the deceased was a pillion rider could also be an offending vehicle. The negligence is composite. To attract section 163 A of the M.V. Act, even if the motorcycle was not the offending vehicle then also there is no impediment on the part of the claimant to invoke section 163 A of Motor Vehicle Act.

Thus this appeal stands dismissed.

The Statutory amount which the Insurance Company has deposited at the time of filing of this appeal should be refund to the Insurance Company.

Rajnish/c.p.2                                                       (ANANDA SEN, J.)