LAWS(DLH)-2015-1-356

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. PREM AND ORS.

Decided On January 16, 2015
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Appellant
V/S
Prem And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant National Insurance Co. Ltd. impugns the judgment dated 15.03.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) whereby in a claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988(the Act), a compensation of Rs.6,84,500/- was awarded in favour of Respondents no.1 and 2 for the death of Sunil who died in a motor vehicular accident which occurred on 21.08.2007.

(2.) It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant that deceased Sunil had hired the motorcycle from Respondent no.3, owner of the motorcycle and thus, he stepped into the shoes of the owner. He being neither a third party nor an employee, no compensation was admissible to Respondents no.1 and 2 from the owner or the insurer of the motorcycle bearing no.DL- 4SAK-3346. It is urged that since the deceased himself was to be blamed for the accident, he cannot claim compensation from the owner of the motorcycle which he himself was driving even under Section 163-A of the Act. Thus, there was no liability of the Insurance Company to indemnify the insured.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondents supporting the judgment passed by the Claims Tribunal urges that the manner of accident is not known. The learned counsel for the Respondents urges that no evidence was led by the Appellant Insurance Company or the owner of the motorcycle that the accident took place because of the negligence of deceased Sunil. No evidence was required as the averments made in the written statement by the owner and the Insurance Company were not refuted. Relying on National Insurance Company Limited v. Sinitha & Ors., 2011 13 Scale 84., the learned counsel for the Respondents submits that under Section 163-A of the Act, the legal representatives of a deceased who dies in a motor vehicular accident were not expected to prove the negligence and the legal representatives were entitled to compensation from the owner of the vehicle.