United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Geeta Devi
2021 Latest Caselaw 12474 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 712/2021

United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Manager (Legal Hub) 74-N Bhati Plaza Building Main Pal Road, Jodhpur

----Appellant Versus

1. Geeta Devi W/o Jagdish, Aged About 27 Years, Village Bhavi, Tehsil Bilara, Dis. Jodhpur

2. Abhishek S/o Jagdish, Village Bhavi, Tehsil Bilara, Dis.

Jodhpur

3. Shish Pal S/o Jagdish, Village Bhavi, Tehsil Bilara, Dis.

Jodhpur

4. Bhanwar Lal S/o Aduram, Village Bhavi, Tehsil Bilara, Dis.

Jodhpur

5. Seeta Devi W/o Bhanwar Lal, Village Bhavi, Tehsil Bilara, Dis. Jodhpur

6. Leela Devi W/o Om Prakash, Village Lamba Tehsil Bilara Dis. Jodhpur

----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Narendra Kumar Joshi For Respondent(s) :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

Judgment

10/08/2021

This appeal is directed against the judgment and award

dated 18/2/2021 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal

(First), Jodhpur ('the Tribunal'), whereby, the Tribunal in a claim

petition under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the

Act') has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.4,58,300/-

along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of application i.e.

18/12/2014.

(2 of 4) [CMA-712/2021]

The application for compensation was filed by the claimants

- wife, children and parents of one Jagdish under Section 163A of

the Act with the averments that on 26/6/2014 Jagdish was driving

the trailer bearing registration No. RJ-19-GB-7542 on express

highway from Nadiyal to Baroda; at about 2.30 pm when he

reached Fatehpur village, another vehicle, which was being driven

ahead of his trailer suddenly applied brakes, Jagdish tried to save

it, however the vehicles collided and the trailer turned turtle.

Jagdish received grievous injuries and died on 28/6/2014. Based

on the said averments, compensation to the tune of Rs.4,65,834/-

was claimed.

Reply was filed by the Insurance Company indicating that the

accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by

deceased Jagdish, which is indicated in the final report produced

by the Police. He was not in possession of valid driving license and

as such, the Insurance Company was not liable for making

payment of compensation.

The Tribunal framed four issues. On behalf of the claimants,

two witnesses were examined and nine documents were exhibited.

No evidence was led by the non-claimants.

After hearing the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion

that Jagdish died on account of injuries suffered by him due to use

of motor vehicle and for determination of a claim under Section

163A of the Act, negligence is not relevant and consequently

awarded the compensation, as noticed hereinbefore.

Learned counsel for the appellant made submissions that the

Tribunal was not justified in awarding compensation inasmuch as

under Section 163A of the Act, claim can only be filed when the

deceased/injured (victim) is third party, however, in the present

(3 of 4) [CMA-712/2021]

case the deceased was driving the trailer as driver and was a

tortfeasor, as such he was not entitled to any compensation and,

therefore, the award impugned deserves to be set aside.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel

for the appellant and have perused the material available on

record.

The issue sought to be raised by the appellant - Insurance

Company has no substance as the issue already stands covered by

the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shivaji vs. Divisional

Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. : AIR 2018 SC 3705,

wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court following the judgment in the

case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Sunil Kumar & Anr. :

AIR 2017 SC 5710 inter alia laid down as under:

"4. The insurer preferred an appeal before the High Court of Karnataka. The appellants also filed an appeal before the High Court seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The High Court, by its impugned judgment, allowed the insurer's appeal and set aside the order of the Tribunal. The High Court opined that the idea behind enacting Section 163A to ensure that even in the absence of any mistake on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, the injured person or the legal heirs of the deceased person are compensated by the owner and the insurer. As a result, under this provision, since the victim has been contemplated to be an innocent third party, protection is extended only to the injured person or to the legal heirs of the deceased victim, and not to the driver who is responsible for causing the said accident. Since the deceased driver in this case was the tortfeasor and responsible for causing the accident, the High Court held that compensation could not have been awarded to the appellants.

5. The issue which arises before us is no longer res integra and is covered by a recent judgment of three judges of this Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sunil Kumar & Anr., wherein it was held that to permit a defence of negligence of the claimant by the insurer and/or to understand Section 163A the Act as contemplating such a situation, would be inconsistent with the legislative object behind introduction of this provision, which is "final compensation within a limited time frame on the basis of the structured formula to overcome situations where the

(4 of 4) [CMA-712/2021]

claims of compensation on the basis of fault liability was taking an unduly long time". The Court observed that if an insurer was permitted to raise a defence of negligence under Section 163A the Act, it would "bring a proceeding under Section 163A the Act at par with the proceeding under Section 166 the Act which would not only be self- contradictory but also defeat the very legislative intention". Consequently, it was held that in a proceeding under Section 163A of the Act, the insurer cannot raise any defence of negligence on the part of the victim to counter a claim for compensation.

6. Having regard to the above position, the Civil Appeal will have to be allowed."

A perusal of the judgment reveals that the High Court of

Karnataka had come to the conclusion that since the victim has

been contemplated to be third party, protection is extended only

to the injured person or to the legal heirs of the deceased victim

and not to the driver, who is responsible for causing the accident

and since the deceased driver was a tortfeasor and responsible for

causing the accident, the claimants are not entitled for

compensation. The said determination made by the High Court

was reversed by Hon'ble Supreme Court.

In view of the above, the appeal filed by the appellant has no

substance and the same is, therefore, dismissed.

(ARUN BHANSALI),J

19-baweja/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)