HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. NATTHARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present civil revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, has been preferred by the petitioner-Insurance Company against the order dated 17-06-2016 passed by the Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dabra District Gwalior in claim No.01/2014 whereby the application preferred by the petitioner under section 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') read with section 151 of CPC, has been dismissed. Through the said application, petitioner Insurance Company wanted to convey the legal position that since the claimant does not come under third party as contemplated under Section 165 of the Act, therefore, he cannot seek compensation and claim application is not maintainable.

(2.) Precisely stated facts of the case are that the respondent Nattharam preferred a claim application under the provisions of the Act for realization of amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,91,000/- for the damage caused to his tractor bearing No. MP07 AA 4059 (insured tractor) which was allegedly damaged in a road traffic accident occurred on dated 13-01-2012 involving another vehicle bearing registration No. DL-1 BB 3375. On the said date, the tractor referred above (MP07 AA 4059) was insured with the petitioner insurance company and the vehicle bearing registration No. DL-1 BB 3375 was insured with Reliance General Insurance Company.

(3.) Earlier the respondent lodged the "own damage claim" against the petitioner Insurance Company in respect of alleged damage caused to the above insured tractor. The same was repudiated by the petitioner Insurance Company as not maintainable. In view of the repudiation of the claim, application under Section 166 of the Act was preferred by claimant. In response to the same application under Section 169 of the Act was filed by Insurance Company and it was submitted that the claim application for realizing the amount of compensation from the petitioner company was not tenable since the Claims Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim pertaining to damage caused to the insured tractor of the respondent in view of the provisions contained under Section 165 of the Act and in view of the several legal pronouncements in this regard. Learned Judge of the MACT rejected the said application. Therefore, the instant revision has been preferred.