United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Shivananjamma and Others

Ajit J. Gunjal, J.—The insurer is in appeal questioning the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal fastening the liability on it to satisfy the award.

Mr. Puttige R. Ramesh, learned Counsel appearing for the insurer, submits that claimants are the legal heirs of the rider of the motor cycle. He submits that no second vehicle was involved in the accident. Hence, the claim petition itself was not maintainable. He further submits that a tort-feaser is not entitled for compensation not his legal heirs for the wrong done by him.

Learned Counsel appearing for the claimants submits that having regard to the fact that the policy is a package policy, the insurer is liable to satisfy the award.

The facts in brief are as under:

Deceased Mahadeva along with pillion rider Puttamadappa were coming from Srimangala, Chamarajanagar Taluk to go to their Village on a Hero Honda motor bike bearing registration No. KA-09-Y-.2731. The date of accident is 25.5.2003. When they were reaching Gloria Village, Mahadeva was riding the motor cycle in a moderate speed and took turn near Gloria Village, at that time one person was crossing the road without observing the movement of vehicle. To avoid the possible accident, the deceased lost control over his vehicle and fell down and sustained grievous injuries. The deceased and the pillion rider were immediately removed to the J.S.S. Hospital, Mysore. Notwithstanding the treatment, the injured died. Hence, the present claim petition is filed seeking compensation on the ground that he was the only earning member of the family and was earning a sum of Rs. . 6,000/-to Rs. . 10,000/- per month and was maintaining the entire family. They would also submit that the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs. . 50,000/- under no fault liability clause u/s 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The insurer entered appearance and filed statement of objections, inter-alia contending that the deceased himself was responsible for the accident. Hence, the question of insurer indemnifying the insured does not arise.

Learned Member of the Tribunal has recorded a finding that indeed the deceased himself was responsible for the accident, but nevertheless awarded compensation of Rs. . 3,60,305/- which is inclusive of loss of dependency and the amount to be awarded under the conventional heads.

We have perused the judgment and award passed by the learned Member of the Tribunal. Apparently, we are of the view that since the deceased himself was a tort-feaser, the question of entertaining a claim in the circumstances would not arise. Indeed we have perused the, claim petition, the oral evidence as well as the documentary evidence. If all the three are read in tandem, it becomes clear that the deceased himself was a tort-feaser. Secondly, the question of legal heirs of the deceased claiming compensation for his death would not arise. Hence, we are of the view that the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal warrants interference insofar as the liability is concerned.

We are of the view that even though the insurer is not liable to satisfy the award, but however, having regard to the provisions of Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the insurer is liable to pay a sum of Rs. . 50,000/- under no fault liability.

Hence, the following order:

i) The appeal is allowed.

ii) The insurer is exonerated from satisfying the award of the Tribunal.

iii) The insurer shall pay a sum of Rs. . 50000/- u/s 140 of Motor Vehicles Act under no fault liability.

iv) The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal.

v) The insurer shall deposit the balance amount within 8 weeks.