The Manager M/s L And T General Insurance Company Ltd. vs Basavaraj & Anr.

Aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 05.02.2022 passed in MVC No.704/2019 by the IV Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional M.A.C.T., Dharwad^{11.For short, ‘the Tribunal’}, respondent No.2/Insurance Company before the Tribunal preferred this appeal challenging the liability.

Parties are hereinafter referred to as per their ranks before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience.

Brief facts of the case are that, on 03.06.2019, the petitioner and two other persons were traveling in an Indica Vista car bearing registration No.KA-28/M-8432^{22.For short, ‘the car’} from Nargund towards Hubballi. When they reached an under-construction bridge near Hubballi, the driver drove the car in a high speed and dashed against the bridge wall and caused accident. Due to the said impact, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries and car also damaged. Immediately after the accident, the petitioner was shifted to the hospital for treatment.

The petitioner further contended that prior to the accident, he was hale and healthy and was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. Due to the accidental injuries, the petitioner lost his earning capacity, and suffered pain and mental agony. Accordingly, the petitioner filed a claim petition claiming compensation before the Tribunal.

After filing of the petition, notices have been issued. Though notice issued on respondent No.1, he remained absent and hence, placed an ex-parte. Respondent No.2 appeared through its counsel and filed objections denying the averments of the petition.

Respondent No.2/Insurance Company contended that the petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. It admitted the issuance of the insurance policy for the car, but disputed its liability under the terms and conditions of the policy. It denied the occurrence of the accident and alleged that the insured vehicle was falsely implicated. It was further contended that the driver of the car did not possess a valid driving license. It denied the age, income, injuries sustained and treatment taken by the petitioner. The petitioner, being the owner of the car, cannot claim compensation against himself. Accordingly, sought for dismissal of the petition as not maintainable.

Before the Tribunal, the petitioner got himself examined as PW2 and got marked the documents at Exs.P9 to Ex.P11. On behalf of respondent No.2, one witness has been examined as RW1 and got marked policy copy as Ex.R1.

On hearing the arguments, the Tribunal allowed the claim petition of the petitioner by awarding compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till realization. The Tribunal further held that the respondent No.2/Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation with accrued interest and directed to deposit the same within a period of 30 days from the date of the award.

Dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award, respondent No.2/Insurance Company filed this appeal.

Learned counsel for the Insurance Company argued that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is opposed to the law and facts; the petitioner is not a third party to the contract so, he cannot maintain a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988^{33.For short, ‘MV Act’} or under Section 163-A of the MV Act; the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-, though there is no liability on the Insurance Company to pay compensation; the Tribunal erred in holding that the premium of Rs.250/- has been paid and the policy issued is a package policy, hence, the owner entitled for compensation; Rs.250/- has been paid by the insurer to cover the risk of unnamed passengers other than the insured, paid driver or cleaner as per Indian Motor Tariff-16; as per the terms and conditions of the policy, the compensation payable either under IMT-15 or IMT-16 is subject to the terms and conditions of the contract of insurance.

Learned counsel further argued that in case of death, loss of two limbs or sight of two eyes or loss of one limb and sight of one eye and permanent total disablement from injuries other than mentioned, the insurance company is liable to pay 100% sum assured under the policy and even the loss of one limb or sight of one eye, the insurance company is liable to pay 50% of the sum assured under the policy. In the present case, the petitioner has not lost either of any limb or sight of an eye, but the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- without considering the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and the Tribunal erred in awarding interest at the rate of 8% per annum, which is not permissible under law. Accordingly, prayed for allowing the appeal.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that the Tribunal has rightly awarded a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the petitioner which does not call for any interference. Accordingly, prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

Heard the arguments. Perused the materials available on record. The points that would arise for consideration by this Court are as follows:

Points framed by this Court for consideration are answered as follows:

Point No.(i) : In the affirmative.

Point No.(ii): As per the final order, for the following:

Regarding Point No.(i): The accident occurred on 03.06.2019 when the petitioner along with other inmates were traveling in a car from Nargund side to Hubballi, when the car reached near under bridge construction Hubballi, the driver of the car drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the bridge wall. As a result, the petitioner and other inmates of the car sustained injuries and petitioner was shifted to KIMS Hospital, wherein he had taken treatment. The petitioner himself was driving the vehicle and met with an accident. The charge sheet has been filed against the petitioner. Ex.R.1 is the policy, which stands in the name of the petitioner i.e., Basavaraj S/o Gurappa Vaddar. The petitioner is the owner of the car. According to the Insurance Company, the owner cannot claim compensation against insurer as he is not a third party to the insured vehicle.

On perusal of Ex.R.1-policy, the liability of the premium has been towards third party liability and P.A. cover for owner, driver, to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/-, P.A. cover for unnamed persons, Rs.1,00,000/- each for 5 persons (IMT-16). The car having package policy. It reads as under:

Ex.R1 clearly indicates that there is a P.A. cover for owner, driver and premium for P.A. cover for unnamed to 5 persons. Petitioner has sustained lacerated wound of size 5x1cm over the lateral aspect of the right eyelid, swelling over right eye temporal version, tenderness right ulterior aspect of right leg and he has sustained grievous injury. Petitioner has sustained grievous injury, but he has not chosen to examine the doctor to assess the disability. So the Petitioner is entitled for compensation of ₹1,00,000/- based on the policy conditions.

This Court did not find any illegality with the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. There is no merit in the appeal.

Accordingly, point No.1 is in the affirmative.

Regarding point No.(ii): In view of the finding on point No.(i), this Court proceeds to pass the following: