Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs Gopal Singh on 11 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
AO No. 41 of 2017
The New India Assurance Company through its Divisional Manager
..................Appellant
Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, Advocate for the appellant
-versus-
Gopal Singh
.........Respondent
Mr. B.D. Pande, Advocate for the respondent
Sri S.K.Mishra, J.
Judgment
11.11.2021
1. Heard Mr. D.C.S Rawat, Advocate for the appellant and
Mr. B.D. Pande, Advocate for the respondent.
2. The limited question in this case arises for consideration
is whether the respondent-claimant being the owner-
cum-driver of the vehicle, met with an accident is
entitled for compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- to be
reimbursed by the Insurance Company.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the
appellant-Insurance Company that since the owner is
not covered under the insurance policy, thus, he is not
entitled for any compensation from the Insurance
Company. Though, the Insurance Company is liable to
pay the damages to the property i.e. damage to the
vehicle can be claimed from the Insurance Company.
He produces a legible copy of the policy schedule-cum-
certificate of Insurance. It is argued that the
respondent has not paid any amount even towards the
limited liabilities to paid driver conductor cleaner
employed for operation.
4. A careful examination of the schedule reveals that the
petitioner has paid OD premium of Rs. 3265/- and TP
Premium of Rs. 9450/-. For better appreciation, the
schedule of payment is given below:-
Schedule of Premium
Own Damage Liability
Basic OD Cover Basic TP Cover
LL to paid driver
conductor cleaner
employed for oprn
OD Premium in Rs 3265 TP Premium in Rs 9450
This table itself shows that the petitioner has paid the
amount under the head own damages. The schedule
does not exclude liability of the insurance company as
far as the personal injury of the owner is concerned.
Moreover, the policy schedule-cum-certificate of
insurance issued by the Insurance Company at the time
of hearing of the case do not specifically mentions
anywhere that the owner-cum-driver is excluded from
receiving any compensation from the Insurance
Company. Moreover, no explanation is forthcoming
from the Insurance Company as to why the original
policy "duly stamped", the copy of which is prepared in
4 sets was not exhibited before the Tribunal. Such
documents could have shed proper light on this issue.
5. Moreover, two judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
are cited at Bar. In the case of "New India Assurance
Company Vs. Meera Bai and others (2006) 9 SCC 174",
the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that schedule
covers only paid driver or conductor. Hence, the owner
who was driving the vehicle is not covered by the
policy. However, in another reported judgment of "New
India Assurance Company Vs. Kendra Devi and others
(2007) 14 SCC 299", the Supreme Court has held in
similar case as follows:-
"Perusal of the schedule of premium mentioned in
the insurance policy, shows that apart from liability
to public risk, the owner has paid premium only for
"paid driver and/or conductor". By contending that
in the case on hand, the deceased being the
owner-cum-driver and without additional
premium/coverage for owner-cum-driver, the
Insurance Company is not liable to pay any
compensation for death of the deceased who was
owner-cum-driver and not paid driver as mentioned
in the schedule of premium. In support of his
contention, learned counsel for the appellant
heavily relied on Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 which speaks about the statutory
liabilities and a decision of this Court in New India
Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Meera Bai.
We have carefully considered the above
provision as well as the decision of this Court.
Taking note of the peculiar facts that the claimants
have lost their only breadwinner, we are not
inclined to interfere with the concurrent orders of
the Tribunal as well as the High Court.
Consequently, the appeal fails and the same is
dismissed. No costs.
6. In view of the matter, this court is of the opinion that
when the insured has suffered severe injuries in an
accident and the policy does not exclude the liability of
the insurance company as to the owner-cum-driver of
the vehicle, this court is not inclined to interfere in the
matter and set-aside the judgment passed by the
learned Tribunal.
7. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order
as to costs. Urgent certified copy of this order be
granted on proper application.
8. Statutory deposits be refunded to the Insurance
Company by the Registry on proof of payment/deposit
of the compensation before the Tribunal.
(S.K.Mishra)
Judge
A/-
