Branch Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Md. Arif Hussain And Ors

Appellant has preferred this appeal against the award dated 28.09.2016 passed in M.A.C.C. Case No.28 of 2014 passed by learned Principal

District Judge-cum-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Simdega whereby the claimant has been awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.6,03,000/-

along with interest @12% per annum from the date of order i.e. 28.09.2016.

Learned counsel for the appellant Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. has assailed the impugned award on two ground:

(I) whether the deceased is a third party to the accident and whether the amount of compensation given to the deceased is proper?

(II) Whether the case will come under hit and run case or not?

Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that this case comes under the category of hit and run and the claimant is entitled for at least

personal accident coverage as he has stepped into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle.

Learned counsel for the Claimant Mr. Pankaj Kumar has submitted that deceased is a third party to the accident and as such, the claim application

was maintainable before the Tribunal.

Learned counsel for the claimant has placed issue nos. 3 and 4 dealt by the learned Tribunal which are quoted hereunder:

“3. Whether the Offending vehicle was properly insured and the Driver of the said vehicle has got valid Driving licence on the date of

Occurrence?

Whether the Claimant is entitled to get any compensation, if so up to what amount and payable by whom?â€​

Learned counsel for the claimant has submitted that these issues have been dealt at page no.4, 5, 6 and 7 of the impugned judgment holding that

deceased Md. Firoj Alam along with his neighbour Wakil Ansari had proceeded to Jamshedpur on his Pick up Van bearing registration no.JH 20A-

7708 and while returning from Jamshedpur when they reached near Tata Chaibasa road near village Dobrosai at about 2.00 P.M., a Bolero Maxi

Truck coming from Chaibasa side in a rash and negligent manner dashed against his Pick up Van, as a result of which he along with his friend

received grievous injury and Pick up Van also got damaged. The said Bolero Maxi Truck bearing registration no.JH 20A-7708 was registered in the

name of O.P. No.1 Md. Mansoor Alam. The same was insured before the Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. vide policy no. OG-13-

2406-1803-00001018 valid from 21.07.2012 to 13.07.2013 and other relevant documents such as registration certificate book, driving licence, Tax

token were up to date and valid on the relevant point. Learned counsel for the claimant has submitted that since the deceased was driving the vehicle

which was hit by unknown vehicle and as such, the deceased was a third party to the accident though the unknown vehicle fled away from the place

of occurrence, as such, the claimants are entitled for compensation being claimant as the third party.

Learned counsel for the claimant has drawn attention of this Court towards the finding recorded by learned Tribunal at page no. 5 of the impugned

award. From the discussions made, it is crystal clear that claimant is the brother of the deceased, hence he is entitled for compensation and said

compensation cannot be denied merely on the basis that the deceased was his own brother and owner of the vehicle is his father. The Tribunal has

further held that one of the offending vehicle bearing registration no.JH 20A 7708 was validly insured before the Bajaj Allianz General Insurance

Company at the time of alleged accident and as such, made liable to pay the compensation. Learned counsel for the claimant has thus submitted that

there is no substance in the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company and as such, the same may be dismissed.

Learned counsel for the owner of the insured vehicle bearing registration no.JH 20A-7708 has submitted that he has not violated any terms and

conditions of the insurance policy, as such, the Tribunal has rightly compensated the claimant by directing the Bajaj Allianz Company to pay the same.

After hearing learned counsels for the appellant and claimant as well as the owner of the vehicle. The submission made by the learned counsel for

the appellant that the claimant is only entitled for personal accident coverage is misconceived notion. It is not a case that the deceased was driving the

vehicle of his father and he fell in a ditch causing accident and ultimately died rather it is a case that deceased was driving the vehicle of his father

which was hit by an unknown vehicle but the vehicle was insured before the Insurance Company-Appellant, as such, accident cannot be covered

under the personal accident coverage rather it is a case under the third party coverage where the accident took place because of collision of two

vehicles since one vehicle has fled away it does not absolve the Insurance company from the liability of insurance coverage with respect to the

offending vehicle JH 20A-7708.

Personal Accident Coverage is only for the person/owner who sustained injury because of his own fault or the person who stepped into the shoe of

the owner met with an accident because of his own fault and not because of accident made by any third party, but in the present case the accident

took place between two vehicles, as such, this submission of learned counsel for the appellant is not proper to be accepted by this Court. As such, the

ground (I) of the appellant may be rejected.

Accordingly, I do not find merit in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant which is hereby rejected. The Tribunal has rightly

decided the issue nos. 3 and 4, which does not require any interference by this Court.

Accordingly, the appeal is hereby dismissed.

So far the interest @12% is concerned, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same as the award has been granted from the date of order

and not from the date of filing of the claim case in view of section 171 of the M.V. Act as well as judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of

Dharmpal and Sons vs. UP State Road Transport Corporation; 2008 (4) JCR 79 S Cand as such even if interest is reduced to 7.5% from the date of

filing of application, not from date of Award @12% as awarded by the Tribunal no substantial amount will change and accordingly, this Court is not

inclined to interfere with the same considering the compensation of Rs.6,03,000/- to be fair, just and proper for the claimant along with interest as

awarded by the learned Tribunal.

Accordingly, the appeal is hereby dismissed.

The Registrar General of this Court is directed to refund/reimburse the statutory amount of Rs. 25,000/- deposited at the time of filing of the appeal

within a period of four weeks from the date of filing of the requisition by learned counsel for the appellant.