Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramu Rajak vs Ramesh Sen on 9 February, 2024
1
M.A.NO.2040/2015 & 2042/2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
ON THE 9th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISC. APPEAL No. 2040 of 2015
BETWEEN:-
RAJJAN PRASAD KHANGAR S/O SADHURAM
KHANGAR, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O VILL.
BALAKOT MUKESH COLONY DAMOH DISTT.
DAMOH (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI KAPIL PATWARDHAN - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. RAMESH SEN S/O NANNURAM SEN, AGED
ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/O CHATRASAL WARD
NO.6 DAMOH (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SMT. KIRAN DUBEY W/O R.P. GOSWAMY
S.H. 25 VAISHALI NAGAR, DAMOH
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. THE NEW INDIA INSURANCE COMP. LTD.
DAMOH SALOMAN COMPLEX, JABALPUR
ROAD, DAMOH DISTT. DAMOH (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI U.S. TIWARI - ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT NO.3)
MISC. APPEAL No. 2042 of 2015
BETWEEN:-
RAMU RAJAK S/O PAIDA @ DURJAN RAJAK,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, CHATRASAL WARD
NO.6 MUKESH COLONY DAMOH (MADHYA
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MONIKA
CHOURASIA
Signing time: 2/26/2024
1:13:05 PM
2
M.A.NO.2040/2015 & 2042/2015
PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI KAPIL PATWARDHAN - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. RAMESH SEN S/O NANNURAM SEN,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, CHATRASAL
WARD NO.6 DAMOH (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. SMT. KIRAN DUBEY W/O R.P.
GOSWAMY, R/O S.H. 25 VAISHALI
NAGAR, DAMOH (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. THE NEW INDIA INSURANCE COMP.
LTD. OFFICE SALOMAN COMPLEX,
JABALPUR ROAD DAMOH, DISTT.
DAMOH (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI U.S. TIWARI - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3)
This appeal coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
JUDGEMENT
By this common judgment M.A.No.2042/2015 is being disposed of
simultaneously.
2. These are miscellaneous appeals respectively filed by the claimants
under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 being aggrieved of
award dated 1/9/2015 passed by learned IIIrd Additional Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Damoh in MVC No.50/2014 and 51/2014.
M.A.NO.2040/2015 & 2042/2015
3. It is submitted by learned counsel of the appellants that keeping in
view the insurance policy Ex. D/1, the learned tribunal ought to held that
insurance company/respondent no.3 liable for compensation. It is
submitted by learned counsel of the appellants that the passenger in
offending vehicle car deemed to be third party, and therefore, the
insurance company cannot escape from the liability to pay the
compensation. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that the
appellants both Ramu & Rajjan have sustained permanent disability but
the compensation is on lower side.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the insurance company submitted that
an appropriate award has already been passed by the learned tribunal in
favour of the appellants.
5. Heard rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
6. Having heard the learned counsel of the parties and perusal of the
record and keeping in view the policy (Ex.D/1) and the statement of
Anand Bihari (NAW/1) regarding that policy it is beyond doubt that both
the appellants were not covered in this policy. It is now well settled in
light of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of National
M.A.NO.2040/2015 & 2042/2015
Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Bala Krishnan reported in 2013 ACJ 99
in which it is held that third-party risk of an occupant of the private car is
not covered under "The Act Policy". The relevant part of the judgment is
as under:-
"An "Act policy" stands on a different
footing from a "comprehensive/package
policy". As the Insurance Regulatory and
Development Authority (IRDA), which is
presently the statutory regulatory authority, has
commanded the insurance companies that a
"comprehensive/package policy" covers the
liability of the insurer for payment of
compensation to the occupant in a motor
vehicle, there cannot be any dispute in that
regard. The earlier pronouncements were
rendered in respect of an "Act policy" which
admittedly cannot cover a third-party risk of an
occupant in a car. But, if the policy is a
"comprehensive/package policy", the liability
would be covered. IRDA has clarified the
position by issuing Circulars dated 16-11-2009
and 3-12-2009. Therefore, a
"comprehensive/package policy" would cover
the liability of the insurer for payment of
compensation for the occupant in a car."
7. Since the policy Ex. D/1 is "an act policy" and doesn't cover
the occupants of vehicle i.e., appellants, therefore, the insurance company
cannot be held liable as per law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in case
of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Bala Krishnan (Supra) as
well as by the High Court of Karnataka in the case of Sri K. Koushik vs.
M.A.NO.2040/2015 & 2042/2015
Sri Sandeep & Others reported in 2017 SCC Online Kar
3684.Hon'bleKarnataka High Court in aforesaid case relied upon the
judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Bala Krishnan and held that act
policy doesn't coverthe occupants of the car and they cannot be deemed
to be a third party.
8. So far as the question of permanent disability is concerned, both the
appellants didn't submitted any permanent disability certificate nor
examined any Doctor on their behalf to prove permanent disability
sustained by them only grievous injury proved to be sustained by them.
Therefore, in absence of required reliable and cogent evidence, it cannot
be said that both appellants have sustained permanent disability. The
learned tribunal in impugned award has rightly held that appellants
sustainedgrievous injury and thereby exonerating the insurance company
held other respondents liable for paying compensation. There is no
ground to interfere with the findings of the learned tribunal. Therefore
while affirming the findings of the learned tribunal, these Miscellaneous
appeals being devoid of merit are dismissed.
9. Let the record of the Tribunal be sent back for information and
necessary compliance.
M.A.NO.2040/2015 & 2042/2015
10. A copy of this judgment be also kept in the record of M.A. No.
2042/2015.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE
m/-
