[Cites 14, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramdayal Carpenter vs Iffco Tokyo General Insurance Co. Ltd. on 29 January, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2760
1 MA-293-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PAVAN KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 29th OF JANUARY, 2026
MISC. APPEAL No. 293 of 2023
RAMDAYAL CARPENTER AND OTHERS
Versus
IFFCO TOKYO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
Appearance:
Shri Abhishek Gilke - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Sudarshan Pandit and Shri Rajesh Pandit - Advocate for respondent No.1.
Heard on : 06.10.2025
Pronounced on : 29.01.2026
ORDER
This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for
brevity 'MVA') filed by the appellants/claimants raises a significant question
that in case of death of owner and his wife in an accident involving insured
vehicle, if a claim is filed by their children for the death of wife and not the
owner without impleading anyone else except the insurance company, then
whether such claim is maintainable or not? The challenge is made to the
impugned award dated 03.11.2022 passed by the Claims Tribunal in Claim
Case No. 160/2019.
2. The facts of the present case are that on 04.03.2019 deceased
Ratanbai was going along with her husband Shivnarayan on the insured
vehicle i.e. motor cycle bearing registration No.MP 42 MF 2391 as a pillion
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2760
2 MA-293-2023
rider from Khilchipur to their village Paldiya. At about 7:00 pm in the
evening, when they reached near Devmaharaj place at village Lima Chouhan
between Sandawta Sarangpur road, Shivnarayan was driving the motor cycle
in a rash and negligent manner because of which the bike got disbalanced
resulting in felling down of Ratanbai. She sustained grievous injuries and
was tried to be taken to hospital however, she died on the way. The
rider/owner of the vehicle Shivnarayan also sustained grievous injuries and
was taken to Gokuldas Hospital for treatment. But he succumbed to the
injuries and died during treatment. As such the owner of the vehicle and his
wife died in the accident. The owner was the rider and wife was the pillion
rider. The appellants/claimants are the son and daughter of the above two
deceased persons. They filed claim petition under Section 166 of the MVA
for death of Ratanbai. It is to be taken note of that they did not file any claim
petition for death of owner of the vehicle Shivnarayan but for the death of
their mother Ratanbai who was the pillion rider.
3. The Claims Tribunal recorded the evidence and concluded that
Ratanbai died due to the injuries sustained by her in the accident caused due
to rash and negligent driving of Shivnarayan. It also concluded that the
vehicle was duly ensured with the respondent/insurance company and there
was no breach of the terms of insurance policy found by the Tribunal. The
Tribunal then quantified the amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.
10,79,672/-. However, while considering the issue of payment, the
compensation was denied by holding in para 52 of the impugned award that
the deceased Ratanbai was the wife of deceased Shivnarayan who was the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2760
3 MA-293-2023
owner. Thus, on the death of Shivnarayan, Ratanbai will become owner of
the vehicle being his legal representative but as Ratanbai has also died thus,
the claimants will become owner of the vehicle and consequently, Ratanbai
being not the third party, the insurance company is not responsible for paying
compensation. As such, the claim petition was dismissed.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants has raised
a plea that merely being related to the insured does not mean that the said
person is not a third party unless they are the insured themselves or their
representative. He submits that the present is a case of peculiar facts. In the
present case there is owner of the vehicle who died in the accident and wife
of the owner of the vehicle who also died in the same accident and children
of both of them are the claimants. The claim petition was consciously filed
for death of Ratanbai-the wife and not for Shivnarayan-the owner. As such,
Ratanbai being the wife of the owner has to be treated as third party and not
his legal representative because she, in fact died before Shivnarayan because
Ratanbai-wife died on the way to hospital whereas Shivnarayan-the owner
died during treatment in the hospital. Thus, the death of Ratanbai occurred
while the owner Shivnarayan was alive. Therefore, the Claims Tribunal has
wrongly concluded that Ratanbai was legal representative of Shivnarayan.
Thus, she cannot be treated as legal representative of Shivnarayan.
5. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the appellants
has placed reliance on the following judgments The New India Insurance
Company Ltd. vs. Nallasivam., (2014) ACJ 1595 of the Madras High Court;
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Kulwant Kaur & Ors., (2015) ACJ 531
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2760
4 MA-293-2023
of the Himachal Pradesh High Court; Francis K.T. vs. Sabu Augustine &
Ors., (2016) ACJ 1074 of the Kerala High Court; Thakur Uma Rani vs.
Thakur Giridhar Singh, (2020) ACJ 1400 of the Telangana High
Court; Royal Sundaram Alliance Ins. Co. Ltd. vs. S.Sivaram, 2023 ACJ 2553
of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, Madurai Bench; Passi Lampu
Sherpa & Anr. vs. Branch Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2024
ACJ 2145 of the High Court of Sikkim At Gangtok; New India Assurance
Co. Ltd. vs. Kanta Devi & Ors., 2024 ACJ 2152 of the High Court of Delhi
at New Delhi.
6. Controverting to the submissions of counsel for the appellants, the
learned counsel for the respondent/insurance company submits that the
deceased Ratanbai on the death of her husband-owner would step into the
shoes of the owner. The legal representatives of the deceased who stepped
into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle could not have claimed
compensation even under Section 163A of the MVA, whereas in the present
case, the claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the MVA. Learned
counsel further submits that in the peculiar facts of the present case, the
claimants have deliberately not made owner as party respondent and it is
only the insurance company which has been impleaded as party respondent.
He submits that in absence of owner on record, the insurance company is not
obliged to indemnify anyone as there is no owner at all. He submits that this
was a deliberate act of the appellants/claimants that they did not implead
owner because on the death of Shivnarayan and Ratanbai in fact, claimants
have become owner of the vehicle. In this view of the matter, the learned
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2760
5 MA-293-2023
counsel for the respondent would submit that the rejection of claim petition
was in accordance with law. In support of his contentions, learned counsel
for the respondent has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in case of Ningamma & Anr. vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
2009 (3) TAC 13 (SC) and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Sunita Rathi &
Others, (1998) 1 SCC 365.
Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record.
7. Section 50 of the MVA provides for transfer of ownership. It
provides that in case of death of a registered owner, the persons succeeding
the possession of the vehicle or as the case may be, who has purchased or
acquired the motor vehicle, shall make an application for the purpose of
transferring the ownership of the vehicle in their name. As such, the death
of owner of the vehicle would entail transfer of ownership to the legal heirs
of the owner however, that has to be done by a proper procedure as provided
under Section 50 of the MVA.
8. Section 155 of the MVA provides the effect of death on certain
causes of action which is reproduced as under :
''155. Effect of death on certain causes of action . - Notwithstanding anything
contained in section 306 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (39 of 1925), the death
of a person in whose favour a certificate of insurance had been issued, if it occurs
after the happening of an event which has given rise to a claim under the provisions
of this Chapter, shall not be a bar to the survival of any cause of action arising out of
such event against his estate or against the insurer.''
9. It is thus clear that death of owner and consequential absence of
owner in a claim case, in the considered view of this Court will not absolve
the insurer from its liability to pay compensation. The insurer in a peculiar
case like the present cannot escape from its liability to pay compensation. In
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2760
6 MA-293-2023
such unfortunate circumstances where the owner and his wife died and there
remain children who, by virtue of inheritance, become their legal
representatives. This would not mean that the insurer has no legal liability to
pay compensation for death of even the wife of owner. In the considered
view of this Court, the learned Tribunal has wrongly concluded that in view
of death of owner of the vehicle, the wife of the owner has become his legal
representative thus, no more remained third party.
10. The Madras High Court in case of Nallasivam (supra), while
considering a similar issue observed that except the insured, all other would
become third party. It will not make any difference that there was a relation
of husband and wife between the deceased the owner and thus, directed the
insurance company to pay compensation.
11. Similarly, the Himachal Pradesh High Court in case of Kulwant
Kaur (supra) has held that death of the owner in the same accident does not
prevent the maintainability of the claim petition by the legal representatives.
The purpose of compensation under the Act is to assist those who have lost
person) upon whom they were dependent and depriving the claimant on the
ground that the deceased owner was not a party would defeat this purpose.
Thus, even in absence of owner, the Court directed the insurance company to
pay compensation. Similarly, in the case of Thakur Uma Rani (supra) , the
Telangana High Court considered the liability of the insurance company and
held that the insurance company is liable to pay compensation for the death
or injury to a pillion rider on a two-wheeler irrespective of the fact of
relation between the owner and the pillion rider. Similar was the opinion of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2760
7 MA-293-2023
the Madras High Court in case of S.Sivaram (supra) .
12. The Andhra Pradesh High Court in case of R.Kamala vs. Shaik
Mohd. Ghouse & Anr., (2004) ACJ 2112 while considering the provisions of
Section 155 of the MVA observed that the cause of action survives against
estate of the owner or insurer. Thus, it was ultimately held that appeal would
not abate for the absence of owner and the insurance company is liable to pay
compensation. Thus, the contention of learned counsel for the insurance
company that in absence of presence of owner as party-respondent the
compensation cannot be directed to be paid as there is nobody to indemnify
by the insurance company, is not sustainable.
13. As regards the issue of compensation to the claimants for death
of Ratanbai, it is hereby held that Ratanbai, on facts and also on law cannot
be termed to be the owner of the vehicle on the death of Shivnarayan. The
provisions of Section 50 of MVA would show that ownership does not
transfer automatically but a procedure is prescribed in as much as an
application has to be filed before the concerned authority in terms of Section
50 for transfer of ownership. In the present case, significantly Ratanbai died
on the way to the hospital and Shivnarayan died during treatment. As such,
even on fact, Ratanbai cannot be treated as legal representative of the
deceased Shivnarayan as she died before the death of Shivnarayan. Thus, at
the time of her death she was a third party as Shivnarayan was alive.
14. The reliance as placed by the learned counsel for the insurance
company on the judgment in the case of Ningamma (supra) is misplaced. In
the said case, issue before the Hon'ble Apex Court was based on a
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2760
8 MA-293-2023
completely different set of facts. In the said case the deceased had borrowed
a motor cycle from its owner and while on the way dashed into a bullock cart
carrying iron-sheets thus died. Wife and minor son of the deceased in that
case filed a claim petition under Section 163-A of the MVA The Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the backdrop of the said facts held that under Section 163-
A of the MVA, it is the owner who is liable to pay compensation and as the
deceased had borrowed motor cycle from owner, thus he stepped into the
shoes of the owner thus, if compensation is allowed, the owner will be
recipient of compensation and also liable to pay the same. However, in the
present case, claim was filed under Section 166 of the MVA and the
claimants never entered into the shoes of the owner, they infact filed claim
for the death of their mother who died in the accident and who was a third
party because she died as a pillion rider and that too before the death of the
owner.
15. As regards the case of Sunita (supra) the facts of the said case
were also completely different. In the said case, the accident occurred at
2:20 pm on 10.12.1991 and the insurance policy and cover note were
obtained by the owner on the same day at 2:55 pm i.e. after occurrence of the
accident. In this backdrop of the case, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the
insurer cannot be held liable on the basis of the said policy and the liability
has to be of the owner of the vehicle. Thus, observation in para 3 of the said
judgment has to be seen in this backdrop which is not at all applicable in the
present case.
16. In the present case, the claim has been filed for death of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2760
9 MA-293-2023
mother of the claimants, who was also the wife of the owner of the insured
vehicle. In the accident, both husband and wife died. As per evidence, wife
died before husband. As per the settled law, except 'Insured' and 'Insurer' all
are third party. The death of the owner occurred after the accident and after
the death of the wife, thus on both counts the provisions of Section 155 of
the Motor Vehicles Act will apply in full force and the cause of action
survives against insurer.
17. Accordingly, it is hereby held that both of the
appellants/claimants are entitled for compensation as quantified by the
Claims Tribunal for the death of Ratanbai. Consequently, the appeal is
allowed. The respondent/insurance company is directed to pay compensation
as quantified by the Claims Tribunal with interest as awarded by the
Tribunal in the impugned award. To that extent, the impugned award is
modified.
With the aforesaid, the appeal stands allowed and disposed of.
(PAVAN KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
vidya
