Preeti Khetwal vs Uttarakhand Jal Vidyut Nigam Limited And Others

Sudhanshu Dhulia, J

This appeal from order arises out of an order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Vikas Nagar, Dehradun in MACP No. 95 of 2016, whereby the claim petition of the claimants has been rejected.

Brief facts of the case are that Bhupesh Chandra Singh (deceased), was a Junior Engineer in Uttarakhand Jal Vidyut Nigam Limited. On 13.09.2015, while he was going on an official vehicle from "Daakpatthar" to "Koti Icchadi Dam", the said vehicle met with an accident as the vehicle fell into a deep "Khadda". Consequently, he sustained injuries and died on the same day.

On account of the death of deceased Bupesh Chandra Singh, a claim petition was filed by the widow of the deceased (claimant no. 1) and his two sons (claimants nos. 2 & 3) claiming a compensation of Rs. 81,20,000/- (Rupees Eighty Lakh Twenty Thousand only). The learned Tribunal vide order dated 20.07.2018 has dismissed the claim petition. Aggrieved, the claimants have filed the present appeal from order.

Learned Senior Counsel for the insurance Company, Mr. V.K. Kohli has argued that the deceased was covered under the Workmen's Compensation Act and was insured with the New India Assurance Company, wherein the claimants have already received a compensation of Rs. 7,02,107/- (Rupees Seven Lakh Two Thousand One Hundred Seven only) and the claim petition is barred by Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 reads as under:

"167. Option regarding claims for compensation in certain cases .- Notwithstanding anything contained in the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923) where the death of, or bodily injury to, any person gives rise to a claim for compensation under this Act and also under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, the person entitled to compensation may without prejudice to the provisions of Chapter X claim such compensation under either of those Acts but not under both."

The argument of the learned Senior Counsel for the insurance company that the claim petition is barred by Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is totally misconceived for the reason that the deceased was not a workman and was not covered under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.

The learned counsel for the claimants would argue that the vehicle in question was covered under the "Comprehensive Policy".

The learned Senior Counsel for the insurance company has argued that in the comprehensive policy, the liability is only limited and what amount of compensation has to be given will depend upon the terms and conditions of the policy.

What is the status of a "Comprehensive Policy" is elaborated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Balakrishnan and another reported in (2013) 1 SCC 731, where the Hon'ble Apex Court had this to say:

"26. In view of the aforesaid factual position, there is no scintilla of doubt that a "comprehensive/package policy" would cover the liability of the insurer for payment of compensation for the occupant in a car. There is no cavil that an "Act policy" stands on a different footing from a "comprehensive/package policy". As the circulars have made the position very clear and IRDA, which is presently the statutory authority, has commanded the insurance companies stating that a "comprehensive/package policy" covers the liability, there cannot be any dispute in that regard. We may hasten to clarify that the earlier pronouncements were rendered in respect of the "Act policy" which admittedly cannot cover a third-party risk of an occupant in a car. But if the policy is a "comprehensive/package policy", the liability would be covered. These aspects were not noticed in Bhagyalakshmi v. United Insurance Co. Ltd. (2009) 7 SCC 148 and, therefore, the matter was referred to a larger Bench. We are disposed to think that there is no necessity to refer the present matter to a larger Bench as IRDA, which is presently the statutory authority, has clarified the position by issuing circulars which have been reproduced in the judgment by the Delhi High Court and we have also reproduced the same."

In view of the above, the order dated 20. 07.2018 is hereby set aside.

The matter is remanded back to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal concerned, which shall hear and decide the matter expeditiously, preferably within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, looking into the law laid down in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Balakrishnan and another reported in (2013) 1 SCC 731, which the claimants allege to be in their favour, as well as the provision relied by the insurance company i.e. Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.