JILJET Vs. STAMPHEN GEORGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Dismissal of the claim petition preferred under 'Section 163A' of the Motor Vehicles Act [herein after referred to as the 'Act' for short] holding that the claimants are not liable to be compensated in respect of the death of their son, who was riding the motor cycle at the relevant time, in view of the law declared by the Apex Court in Ningamma and another Vs. United Insurance Company Ltd. [AIR 2009 SC 3056 : 2009 ACJ 2020] is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal.

(2.) The deceased rider of the motor cycle was riding a two wheeler on 07.08.2001, when the vehicle suddenly overturned causing fatal injuries leading to death of the rider. Claim petition was filed by the appellants [widow and minor son of the deceased] under Sec. 163A of the Act; where the parents of the deceased were shown as respondent Nos. 3 and 4. Contending that the deceased, aged 28 years was having a monthly income of Rs. 3000.00, compensation was claimed to an extent of Rs. 6 lakhs. The owner of the motorcycle and the parents of the deceased [respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4 respectively] were set ex-parte. The insurer disputed the liability, challenging the maintainability of the claim petition under Sec. 163A of the Act, besides contending that the deceased was riding the vehicle without a valid driving licence and there was breach on the part of the first respondent/insured in this regard. No oral evidence was adduced from either side. The Tribunal held that the claim petition was maintainable under Sec. 163A of the Act, however, placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Ningamma's case [cited supra], it was held that the deceased who was riding the motor cycle belonging to the first respondent at the relevant time virtually stepped into the shoes of the owner/insured and was not liable to be compensated in any manner. It was accordingly, that the claim petition was dismissed, which is sought to be challenged by the appellants/claimants in this appeal.

(3.) The main ground raised in the memorandum of appeal is that the Tribunal was not correct or justified in relying on the verdict passed by the Apex Court in Ningamma's case [cited supra]. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the policy involved in Ningamma's case [cited supra] was an 'Act only Policy', whereas the policy involved herein is a 'Comprehensive Policy'. A copy of the said policy, with the terms and conditions, is placed for perusal of this Court.