Madhya Pradesh High Court
National Insurance Co.Ltd. vs Smt.Asha Gupta on 6 May, 2024
Author: Roopesh Chandra Varshney
Bench: Roopesh Chandra Varshney
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ROOPESH CHANDRA VARSHNEY
ON THE 6TH DAY OF MAY, 2024
MISC. APPEAL No. 906 OF 2010
BETWEEN:-
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY
LIMITED HAVING DIVISIONAL OFFICE NO.
1 AT JAYENDRAGANJ, LASHKAR,
GWALIOR THROUGH ITS SENIOR
DIVISIONAL MANAGER (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI S.N.GAJENDRAGADKAR - ADVOCATE )
AND
1 SMT. ASHA GUPTA W/O VISHWANATH
GUPTA AGED 45 YEARS, R/O NEAR
BIJASEN MATA NAKA CHANDRABADNI
THANA JHANSI ROAD, GWALIOR
DISTRICT GWALIOR (MADHYA
PRADESH).
2. DHIRENDRA GUPTA S/O DWARIKA
PRASAD GUPTA R/O NAL WALI GALI,
LOHIYA BAZAR, LASHKAR GWALIOR
(MADHYA PRADESH).
.....RESPONDENTS
(RESPONDENT NO. 1 BY SHRI R.P.GUPTA- ADVOCATE)
AND
MISC. APPEAL No. 1094 OF 2010
BETWEEN:-
SMT. ASHA GUPTA S/O LATE SHRI
VISHWANATH GUPTA, AGED 45
2
YEARS, OCCUPATION HOUSEWIFE,
R/O NEAR BIJASEN MATA, NAKA
CHANDRABADANI, LASHKAR,
GWALIOR, DISTRICT GWALIOR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI R.P.GUPTA - ADVOCATE )
AND
1 DHIRENDRA GUPTA S/O SHRI
DWARIKA PRASAD GUPTA, R/O NAL
WALI GALLI, LOHIYA BAZAR,
LASHKAR, GWALIOR (MADHYA
PRADESH) (OWNER).
2. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY
LIMITED, JAYENDRAGANJ, LASHKAR
GWALIOR THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL
MANAGER (MADHYA PRADESH).
.....RESPONDENTS
(RESPONDENT NO. 2 BY SHRI RAJESH GUPTA - ADVOCATE)
These appeals coming on for orders this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
This common order shall govern disposal of M.A.No. 906/2010 and
1094/2010 as both these appeals are filed by Insurance Company as well
as claimant against the common award dated 20/4/2010 passed by
Fourteenth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gwalior in Claim
Case No. 173/2009.
2. M.A.No. 906/2010 has been filed by Insurance Company
challenging the finding as recorded by the Claims Tribunal holding the
Insurance Company liable to pay Rs. 1 Lac towards the amount of
compensation on the ground that deceased-Sanjay Gupta was driving the
motorcycle after borrowing it from the owner.; whereas, M.A.No.
1094/2010 has been filed by the Claimant seeking enhancement in the
compensation amount.
3. Tribunal has though awarded a compensation of Rs.2,41,000/-
however; Insurance Company was held liable for payment of
compensation amount to the extent of Rs. 1 Lac only under personal
accident cover but personal accident cover is admissible only to the owner
of the insured vehicle having a valid driving license to drive that category
of vehicle and not to the borrower to the vehicle in terms of the provisions
contained in G.R. 36 (General Regulations of IMP) which provides that
owner of the insured vehicle holding an effective driving license is termed
as 'owner/driver' for the purposes of this section. Cover is provided to the
owner/driver once driving the vehicle including mounting
into/dismounting from or travelling in the insured vehicle as a co-driver.
4. It is submitted that it is not applicable to a borrower of the vehicle,
therefore, in terms of the law laid down by Division Bench of Kerala
High Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.
Vijayarajan and others, 2010 ACJ 280 wherein it is held that deceased
was neither owner of the vehicle nor was he the insured named in the
policy, therefore, personal accident cover is not extendable to him.
However, Shri Gupta, learned counsel for the claimants, in his turn,
submits that as per the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court, deceased
will move into the shoes of the owner, therefore, personal accident cover
will be applicable to him.
5. As regards M.A.No. 1094/2010, learned counsel for the claimants
submitted that learned Claims Tribunal erred in assessing the dependency
to the extent of 50% and also erred in assessing his income at Rs. 3,000/-
per month. Further the amount awarded under the other heads is also on
lower side.
6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, going through the
record and having regards to the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Ramkhiladi and another Vs. United India Insurance
Company and another, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 10, this Court is of the
view that once it is held that borrower into the shoes of the owner, then
provisions of Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act cannot apply
wherein the owner of the vehicle himself is involved. When this analogy is
stressed, then a party cannot be made to suffer and once a person
borrowing a vehicle stepped into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle and
it is not the case of insurance company that driving was not having a valid
driving license to drive a borrowed vehicle, applying the analogy as
mentioned in the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Ramkhiladi and another (supra) and Ningamma and another Vs.
United India Insurance Company Limited, (2009) 13 SCC 710, and
looking to the nature of the provisions contained in the Motor Vehicles Act
which are beneficial in nature, this Court is of the opinion that there is no
illegality in the impugned award calling for interference.
7. As regards M.A.No. 1094/2010, in the opinion of this Court the
amount of award amount as assessed by the Claims Tribunal is just and
proper and as per the evidence brought on record and therefore, needs no
interference.
8. Accordingly, both these miscellaneous appeals fail and are hereby
dismissed.
(ROOPESH CHANDRA VARSHNEY)
JUDGE
jps/-
JAI Digitally signed by JAI PRAKASH SOLANKI
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT OF
MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR,
PRAKASH
2.5.4.20=287738d30aabaeda9b10cecdf179cec8
65c7633f4cfb9e38ce14fcbb05b9522a,
postalCode=474001, st=Madhya Pradesh,
serialNumber=8D6BC1C9FCE36623D0BD6B8072
SOLANKI
A2D8C01433EBD48AE4F609F108CA8F8DE6B52
2, cn=JAI PRAKASH SOLANKI
Date: 2024.05.16 11:29:47 +05'30'
