National Insurance Company Ltd vs Reena Kumari & Ors

R.K.Gauba, J

The accident claim case (suit no.433/2009) instituted on 02.05.2005 by the first to third respondents (collectively, the claimants) sought

compensation under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, on account of the death of Sanjay Kumar @ Sanju Kumar on 04.03.2005 at a

place just ahead of Toll Plaza near Badarpur Border. Sanjay Kumar @ Sanju Kumar was the driver of truck bearing registration no.HR-38G-4745

which was owned by the fourth respondent (since deceased) who had engaged him for such purposes as an employee. The truck was admittedly

insured against third party risk with the appellant (insurer) for the period in question. It is an admitted case of the claimants that the death had

occurred on account of Sanjay Kumar @ Sanju Kumar being stabbed by certain miscreants who had waylaid him with the truck at the place of the

incident, this forming subject matter of investigation by first information report (FIR) no.167/2005 under Sections 392, 397, 302 read with Section 34 of

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) of police station Badarpur, Delhi.

The contention of the claimants before the tribunal was that the death having been caused as a result of culpable homicide of Sanjay Kumar @

Sanju Kumar, at a time when he was driving the truck, amounted to an accident that had occurred during the course of use of the truck and, therefore,

the invocation of Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was appropriate.

The insurance company while resisting the case not only contended that the claim could not fall within the four corners of the jurisdiction of the

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Tribunal), there being no nexus, as per its submission, between the death and the accident as is a pre-requisite under

Section 163-A, it also contended that the deceased was not a third party in such respect and, therefore, it could not be called upon to indemnify the

owner.

In the given fact situation, though the tribunal has rejected the objection on the first above noted aspect, inter alia, with reference to the ruling in

Reeta Devi & Ors. Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. and Anr., II (2000) ACC 291 (SC), the impugned judgment is conspicuously silent on the

question of “third partyâ€​.

After some hearing, the learned counsel for the claimants submitted that in view of the omission on the part of the tribunal to render a clear decision

on above aspect, the impugned judgment may be set aside, but his request was that the matter may be remitted to the tribunal for appropriate and

complete adjudication. Ordered accordingly.

The claim case is thus remanded to the tribunal for fresh adjudication by the tribunal including on the question of the defence of the insurance

company that it cannot be held liable for the reason that the deceased was not a third party in its respect. Since the insurance company had also come

up with other contentions having a bearing on the quantum of compensation, all such pleas are reserved and may be re-agitated before the tribunal.

The parties are directed to appear before the tribunal on 19.12.2017.

By order dated 05.04.2013, the insurance company had been directed to deposit the entire awarded amount with up-to-date accrued interest with

the Registrar General who was directed to retain the said amount in fixed deposit. The amount thus deposited with accrued interest and the statutory

amount shall presently be refunded to the insurance company.

This disposes of the appeal and the application filed therewith.