NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LT Vs. BHASKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Insurance Company in O.P(MV) No. 185/2001 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thodupuzha, is the appellant herein. Sabu, the son of respondents 1 and 2 who was the brother of respondents 3 to 5 died in a motorcycle accident, while the deceased was riding a motorcycle. The respondents filed a claim for compensation for the death of Sabu, by filing a claim petition under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act. Before the Tribunal, the appellant-Insurance Company took the stand that the policy covers only third parties and the deceased himself being the rider of the vehicle, they are not liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle for compensation for the death of the driver, who is not a third party. It was further contended that the accident occurred because of the negligence of the rider himself. In the award, the Tribunal entered a finding that the accident occurred because of the negligence of the rider himself. But, taking the view that in a claim under Section 163A, negligence is not a relevant factor and if the accident resulted due to the involvement of a motor vehicle, compensation is payable by the Insurance Company. In that view, the Tribunal directed the Insurance Company to pay Rs. 1,95,200.00 with interest to the respondents as compensation. The Insurance Company is challenging that part of the award, whereby they have been held to be liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle.

(2.) ACCORDING to the learned counsel for the appellant, the Tribunal has entered a finding that the accident occurred because of the negligence of the deceased himself. That being so, according to counsel for the Insurance Company, the issue is covered in favour of the appellant by the Full Bench decision of this Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Joseph, 2012 (2) KLT 132 (SC). It is further submitted that insofar as the policy is only to satisfy the requirements of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the same would cover only third parties and the deceased being the brother of the owner of the vehicle, was actually a representative of the owner and he stands in the shoes of the owner himself. Therefore, the deceased was not a third party covered by the policy in respect of whom the insurer is liable to indemnify the insured. Secondly, the Act Policy will not cover the owner or his representative. Lastly, another contention is raised that in the claim petition, the respondents themselves gave the income of the deceased as Rs. 4000.00 in which case, Section 163A is not available to the respondents for claiming compensation insofar as the annual income of the deceased exceeds Rs. 40,000.00.

(3.) WE have considered the rival contentions in detail.