Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pankaj vs Dinesh on 11 March, 2025
Author: Prem Narayan Singh
Bench: Prem Narayan Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:6701
1 MA-2025-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PREM NARAYAN SINGH
MISC. APPEAL No. 2025 of 2014
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.
Versus
DINESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Bhashkar Agrawal and Shri Pradip Kumar Gupta, learned counsels
for the appellant.
Shri Mohammad Ikram Ansari, learned counsel for the respondent [R-1].
WITH
MISC. APPEAL No. 2353 of 2014
PANKAJ
Versus
DINESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Ms. Bhagyashree Sugandhi, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Bhashkar Agrawal and Shri Pradip Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for
the respondent No. 3.
Heard on : 28.02.2025
Pronounced on : 11.03.2025
ORDER
With consent of the parties, heard the matter finally.
2. All these appeals are arising out of the award dated 30.06.2014
passed by Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District-Badwani in
claim case No.101/2013 in which tribunal has awarded compensation in
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:6701
2 MA-2025-2014
favour of the claimants amount of Rs.3,60,900/- (Rs.1,60,900/- from
respondent No.1/owner of the vehicle & Rs.2,00,000/- from Insurance
Company/respondent No. 2) with interest in death of Dinesh in motor
accident claim case against owner and insurance company jointly and
severely. All these appeals have been analogously heard and are being
decided by this common order. Further, for the sake of convenience,
claimants Dinesh S/o Rukhadu and Manu Bai W/o Dinesh will be referred as
appellant Nos. 1 & 2 respectively while Pankaj S/o Sunil Kumar Arya
(Owner of the vehicle Maruti No. MP09-HC-4796) and United India
Insurance Co. Ltd. will be referred as respondent Nos. 1 & 2 respectively.
3. MA No.2025/2014 has been filed by the insurance company under
Section 173 (1) of Motor Vehicle Act seeking exoneration from its liability.
4. MA No.2353/2014 has been filed by the owner of the vehicle
seeking exoneration from his liability.
5. Respondent No. 1 was owner of the offending vehicle and
respondent No. 2 was the insurance company with whom the offending
vehicle was insured. The tribunal after framing issues and recording the
evidence allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation in favour of
the claimants.
6. Being aggrieved by the impugned award, respondent No. 1/owner
of the vehicle has filed this appeal by contending that the tribunal has grossly
erred in considering the evidence available on record. He has also stated that
as per Section 163-A of the Act 1988 was not maintainable as the deceased
himself was driving the vehicle and responsible for the accident. It is
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:6701
3 MA-2025-2014
contended that the learned trial Court has erred in awarding compensation of
Rs.1,60,900/- against respondent Nos. 1 and it is also contended that when
vehicle was insured, no compensation can be awarded against the
owner/respondent No. 1. However, it is fairly submitted by learned counsel
for the respondent No. 1/owner that award amount against the owner has
already been deposited before the tribunal.
7. Learned counsel for the insurance company has also submitted
that the tribunal has also committed error of fact and law in fastening the
liability to pay compensation to the claimant for the reason that the
deceased/Dinkar did not have valid and effective driving license whereas he
was driving a vehicle and there was no endorsement on the driving license of
the driver of the offending vehicle to drive vehicle at the time of accident.
The tribunal has also not appreciating the clause for coverage of personal
accident of owner-driver at Rs.2,00,000/-, as it is when the owner who is
driving the vehicle, sustains injury or death, that he is to be compensated to
that extent, but admittedly the deceased was simply a driver of the vehicle
and was a thirty party. So on these grounds, insurance company as well as
owner of the vehicle should be exonerated from their liability.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimant Nos. 1 & 2
supported the impugned award and prayed for rejection of the appeal.
9. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties, I have gone
through the record. Learned Tribunal has found that when there a contract
between owner and insurance company with regard to limitation of
compensation for the driver of the vehicle, that limit should be followed. In
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:6701
4 MA-2025-2014
this case, claimants/appellants have been awarded Rs.3,60,900/- as
compensation from Insurance Company and owner. Since the claimants are
heir of the driver, they can be awarded only by the Insurance Company and
remaining amount can be obtained from owner itself.
10. Learned counsel for the owner has further submitted that since
liability of driver is extended to the limit of Rs.5,00,000/-, the owner should
not be liable for any amount. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
Insurance Company has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of Ningamma and Another Vs. United India Insurance Company
Ltd., 2009 ACJ 2020 and submitted that since the driver of the vehicle
stepped into the shoes of the owner, while driving vehicle, he would not be
given any amount from Insurance Company.
11. Having gone through the law laid down in the case of Ningamma
and Another (Supra), in that case, the driver was borrower of the vehicle, not
an employee of owner. In the present case, he is an employee of the owner
as a driver. Hence, the law laid down in the case of Ningamma and Another
(Supra) will not be applied in the case at hand, and no benefit can be
awarded to the Insurance Company in this regard.
12. So far as the contention of owner of the vehicle is concerned, the
law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramkhiladi and another
v/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and another reported in (2020) ACJ 627 ,
wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the deceased stepped into the
shoes of the owner as he was not the party. The following excerpt of
Ramkhiladi (Supra) is quoted here :-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:6701
5 MA-2025-2014
"5.8. However, at the same time, even as per the
contract of insurance, in case of personal accident the
owner- driver is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-.
Therefore, the deceased, as observed hereinabove, who
would be in the shoes of the owner shall be entitled to a
sum of Rs.1,00,000/- even as per the contract ODF
insurance. However, it is the case on behalf of the
original claimants that there is an amendment to the
Second Schedule and a fixed amount of Rs.5,00,000/-
has been specified in case of death and, therefore, the
claimants shall be entitled to Rs.5,00,000/-. The same
cannot be accepted. In the present case, the accident
took place in the year 2006 and even the judgment and
award was passed by the learned Tribunal in the year
2009, and the impugned judgment and order has been
passed by the High Court on 10.05.2008, i.e., much
prior to the amendment in the Second Schedule. At the
same time, as observed hereinabove, the claimants shall
be entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- as per the terms of the
contract of insurance, the driver being in the shoes of
the owner of the vehicle."
13. Since Second Schedule of Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988, was amended and made enforceable from 22.05.2018 vide
notification i.e Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Notification
No.S.O.2022 (E) -Dated the 22nd May, 2018. Published in Gazette of India
(Extraordinary) Part II Section 3(ii) dated 22.05.2018, a compensation
payable in case of death was Rs.5,00,000/-, but in the present case, accident
was occurred in the year 2012, therefore, compensation be awarded upto the
limit of Rs.2,00,000/- only against the Insurance Company (M.A. No.
2025/2014) and for remaining amount of Rs.1,60,900/- owner (M.A. No.
2353/2014) is liable.
14. In view of the aforesaid analysis, proposition of law and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:6701
6 MA-2025-2014
considering the evidence of claimants, it is apparent that the learned Claim
Tribunal has elaborately discussed the evidence and law, adjudicated the
award for the claimants, no error is found in the judgment while holding the
liability against respondent No. 1/ owner of the vehicle and respondent No. 2
/Insurance Company. Accordingly, the findings of learned Claims Tribunal
does not call for any interference. These appeals filed for set aside the
impugned award, being bereft of merits, deserve to be and is hereby
dismissed.
15. With the aforesaid, M.A. No. 2025/2014 and No. 2353/2014
stand dismissed.
(PREM NARAYAN SINGH)
JUDGE
Vindesh
