AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sanjay Yadav, J.—Heard.
Insurance Company being aggrieved of the award dated 21.5.2010 passed by the First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Betul in M.V.C No. 23/2010 has preferred this Appeal under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Vide impugned award compensation of Rs.2,33,000/- has been awarded to the claimants in lieu of death of Naresh who was travelling in the offending Vehicle bearing registration in M.P. 48- GA/0318 which turned turtle on 25.4.2009 due to rash and negligent driving by respondent No. 4. The deceased was a cleaner.
Learned Tribunal taking into consideration that the deceased was engaged as Cleaner assessed the notional income at Rs.3000/- per month being equivalent to that of a skilled labour, ascertained the loss of dependency as 1/3rd instead of 50% and by applying the multiplier of 18, i.e., the age of the deceased who was unmarried and by adding the expenses under conventional head awarded Rs.2,33,000/- as compensation.
As regards the defence by the Insurance Company that on the date when the accident occurred, the vehicle was not insured because the cheque paid towards premium to cover the period beyond 30.10.2008 dishonoured due to insufficient fund and matching of signature, the Claims Tribunal found that the Insurance Company since did not inform the owner of the offending vehicle within reasonable time of rejecting the request for insurance and the notice was sent on 2.11.2009, i.e., after the accident had occurred, declined to exonerate the Insurance Company, holding:
Claims Tribunal sought support from decision in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rula and Others, and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hari Narain Thathera and Others, .
In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Rula and others it is held:
The contract of insurance in respect of motor vehicles has, therefore, to be construed in the light of the above provisions. Section 146(1) contains a prohibition on the use of the motor vehicles without an insurance policy having been taken in accordance with Chapter 11 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The manifest object of this provision is to ensure that third party, who suffers injuries due to the use of the motor vehicle, may be able to get damages from the owner of the vehicle and recoverability of the damages may not depend on the financial condition or solvency of the driver of the vehicle who had caused the injuries.
Thus, any contract of insurance under Chapter 11 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 contemplates a third party who is not a signatory or a party to the contract of insurance but is, nevertheless, protected by such contract. As pointed out by this Court in New Asiatic Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pessumal Dhanamal Aswani and Others, , the rights of the third party to get indemnified can be exercised only against the insurer of the vehicle. It is thus clear that the third party is not concerned and does not come into the picture at all in the matter of payment of premium. Whether the premium has been paid or not is not the concern of the third party who is concerned with the fact that there was a policy issued in respect of the vehicle involved in the accident and it is on the basis of this policy that the claim can be maintained by the third party against the insurer."
The appellant insurance company has questioned the award on two counts. Firstly, that the Claims Tribunal has erred in holding that the vehicle was insured during the period when the accident took place and secondly, the quantum of compensation is on the higher side.
As regard to claim that the offending vehicle was not insured, the Claims Tribunal on the basis of evidence on record did not falter in holding that the vehicle was insured and a third party cannot be made to suffer for the lapses of Insurance Company.
As regard to quantum of compensation true it is that since the deceased was unmarried the multiplier on the parents age should have been taken; however, taking into consideration that the loss of dependency as taken as 25 % instead of 50% no interference is caused with the quantum either.
Consequently, appeal fails and is dismissed.