JUJAMMA Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The claimants in MVC. No. 1679/2008 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge & MACT Tumkur, have come up in this appeal challenging the judgment and award dismissing their claim petition on the ground that deceased Honnappa who is the husband and father of claimants 1 to 3 and sons of claimants 4 and 5 before the Tribunal was the pillion rider at the time of accident, hence the dependants are not entitled to seek compensation. It is not in dispute that said Honnappa was the owner of vehicle involved in the accident and was pillion rider at the time of accident, which has caused his death. The claim petition filed by legal representatives of deceased Honnappa is dismissed on the ground that he being the owner of vehicle and also pillion rider, claimants are not entitled to seek compensation. Being aggrieved by the same, the claimants have come up in this appeal contending that under the insurance policy which is at Ex.R1, an additional premium of Rs. 50/- is received to insure the liability with regard to injuries that would be caused to owner-driver.

(2.) The claimants have come up in this appeal trying to bring their claim within the liability that should be fastened on the insurance company under the said additional payment of premium contending that the word 'owner-driver' is not one word, but it has to be read as 'owner' or 'driver'. If it is taken as 'owner' or 'driver' the liability of owner is covered under the policy and in such an event, claimants would be entitled to seek compensation for the death of Honnappa.

(3.) After going through the grounds urged in the appeal memo with reference to the finding of tribunal in dismissing the appeal and also on going through Ex.R1, it is clearly seen that additional premium of Rs. 50/- charged by insurance company is to cover the liability of owner -driver. That means, if owner himself is driving the vehicle and if any injury is caused to him, he would be entitled to receive compensation for the injuries suffered to him and also would give raise right to his dependents to seek compensation for his death. In the instant case, nodoubt deceased was owner of vehicle, but he was not driving the vehicle at that time. Therefore, additional premium of Rs. 50/- which would have come to his rescue provided if he were to be driving the vehicle would not be available to him when he was Travelling in the said vehicle as pillion rider. In that view of matter, the interpretation sought to be given for said endorsement in Ex.R1, insurance policy is unacceptable and in the result, the appeal filed by claimant seeking reversal of finding of tribunal in dismissing their claim petition does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, appeal filed by claimants is dismissed and the judgment and award dated 21.8.2010 passed in MVC. No. 1679/2008 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge & MACT, Tumkur, is confirmed. No order as to costs.