UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. SANTOSH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned Counsel for the respondent has raised a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the appeal; it is pointed out that the permission as envisaged under Section 170 of the MV Act not having been taken by the appellant, the appeal is not maintainable. To substantiate her submission, she has placed reliance on the judgment , National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sulo Devi & Ors, 2008 1 ACC 9. This argument has been countered by the learned Counsel for the appellant. It is pointed out that the claim of the petitioner/claimants under Section 163A of the MV Act had been dismissed; this claim had been awarded not under the MV Act but in terms of the contract of Insurance which was between the insurer and the insured. This submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant has force. Provisions of Section 170 of the MV Act are inapplicable. Appeal is thus maintainable even in the absence of permission under Section 170 of the M.V. Act.

(2.) This appeal has impugned the award dated 16.4.2010 vide which compensation in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000 under the head "compulsory personal accident cover" had been awarded to the claimants of the deceased Lalit Arora @ Monu.

(3.) Facts emanating are that the owner of the offending vehicle i.e. the scooter bearing No. DL-8SS-8201 was Rajesh Arora. The vehicle on the fateful day i.e. 25.3.2007 was being driven by his brother of Lalit @ Monu also suffered an accident pursuant to which he succumbed to his injuries and died. The parents of the deceased Lalit @ Monu had filed the present claim petition under Section 163A of Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the MV Act') This petition had been dismissed. The victim being not an employee of this brother who was the owner of the insured vehicle, claim under Section 163A of the MV Act had been dismissed. The policy Ex. RW2/1A had been scrutinized; the policy shows that a sum of Rs. 50 had been paid as premium to the Insurance Company to get compulsory personal accident cover to the owner/driver amounting to Rs. 1 lakh under the head "compulsory personal accident cover". Admittedly, the claimants in this case were the parents of deceased Lalit @ Monu; in their capacity as parents of deceased Lalit @ Monu they had sought this amount which had accordingly been awarded to them. Learned Counsel for the appellant has disputed this amount and rightly so. The compulsory personal accident cover was only for the benefit of the owner/driver as is evident from the policy itself. It could not have been granted to the legal heirs of the brother of the owner; awarding this sum of Rs. 1 lack as personal accident cover to the LRs of Lalit @ Monu is thus liable to be set aside and is, accordingly, set aside. Statutory amount deposited be returned.