UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD Vs. RAMRATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Insurance Company is in appeal challenging the liability on the ground that the person who met with an accident by hitting against a tree was a borrower of a vehicle and he cannot maintain an action for compensation against the insurer. It refers to the terms of the policy that shows that there is a cover for personal accident for the owner cum driver and the policy details do not reveal any cover to any driver of the vehicle. The issue relating to liability of an insurer has been dealt with by the Hon 'ble Supreme Court in Ningamma and another V/s. United India Insurance Company Ltd ' (2009 -4)156 PLR 796 (SC) . While referring to the liability of an insurer under an Act Policy the Hon 'ble Supreme Court has again reaffirmed the principle in New India Assurance Company Limited V/s. Sadanand Mukhi and others (2009) 2 SCC 417 that an insurer shall not be liable. It shall not be understood that in all cases where an accident results by one 'sown driving, a claim under Section 163 -A of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act ') will not be possible. It shall be the duty of the Court to examine whether there are any clauses in Insurance that make the insurer liable, as cautioned by the Hon 'ble Supreme Court in Bimlesh and others V/s. New India Assurance Company Limited (2010) 7 SCALE 732.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the respondents also contends that Ningamma 'sand Sadanand Mukhi 'scase (supra) will apply only to situations where the policy is an Act Policy and it will not apply in other types of insurance. Such a wide proposition cannot be still made and the enforcement of a claim against an insurance by a person who himself was driving the vehicle will be tested vehicle. The decisions are cited as under.

(3.) THE only benefit that the claimant would still obtain would be a claim at the instance of the legal representative under no fault liability secured through Section 140 of the Act. This point has been dealt with by the judgment of the Hon 'ble Supreme Court in Eshwarappa @ Maheshwarappa and Anr. V/s. C.S.Gurushanthappa and Anr.(2010 - 4) 160 PLR 399 (SC) entitled the claimants would be only to secure Rs. 50,000/ - against the insurance company. The award of the Tribunal making insurer liable for a claim is set aside. The liability of the insurer however, shall stand restricted to Rs.50,000/ - on the basis of no fault under Section 140 of the Act. The appeal filed by the Insurance Company is allowed but subject to liability as aforesaid. Equivalent Citation:2011 -TAC -1 -48 2010 (0) AIJ -PH 1655381 PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Hon'ble Judges:K.Kannan, J. New India Assurance Company Limited Through Its Deputy Manager Versus Smt.Santosh Wife Of Shri Ajay Kumar Son Of Shri Basti with Smt.Santosh Wife Of Ajay Kumar Son Of Sh.Basti Ram Versus Karam Singh Son Of Shri Bhikhu Ram F.A.O. No. 2246 of 2009 ; 3432 of 2009 ; *J.Date : - SEPTEMBER 29, 2010 HARYANA COMPASSIONATE ASSISTANCE TO THE DEPENDENTS OF THE DECEASED GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES RULES, 2006 HARYANA COMPASSIONATE ASSISTANCE TO THE DEPENDENTS OF DECEASED GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES RULES, 2006 - APPEAL ALLOWED. KeyWords: Government employee - Cases Referred To : Bahgat Singh V/s. Om Bale V/s. William Hunts And Sons Limited, 1912 0 AC 496 Bhakra -beas Management Board V/s. Kanta Aggarwal, 2008 11 SCC 366 Cunningham V/s. Harrison, 1973 0 QB 942 Davies V/s. Powell Duffryn Associated Collieries Ltd., 1942 1 ELR 657 General Manager, Kerala State Road Trans. Corporation V/s. Susamma Thomas, 1994 2 SCC 176 Gobald Motor Service Ltd. V/s. R.M.K. Veluswami, AIR 1962 SC 1 Harjit Kaur V/s. Tochi Transport, 1986 2 ACC 70 : 1986 AIJ_PH 1647854 Helen C. Rebello V/s. Maharashtra State Road Trans. Corporation, 1999 1 SCC 90 Kanika Hazarika And Ors. V/s. Sreeam Barthakur And Ors., 2003 0 ACJ 159 : 2001 (1) GauLT 82 : 2001 (1) GauLJ 431 : 2001 AIJ_AS 601930 Kerala Minerals And Metals Limited V/s. Raman Nair, 1998 1 LLJ 993 Liffen V/s. Watson, 1940 1 KB 556 Lords In Hodgson V/s. Trapp, 1988 3 AllER 870 Management Of Tamil Nadu Cement Corporation Ltd. V/s. N. Jayapalm, 1994 1 LLJ 838 : 1993 (2) MLJ 363 : 1994 ACJ 60 : 1994 (68) FLR 861 : 1994 (2) ACC 670 N. Sivammal V/s. Md, Pandiyan Roadwasys Corppration, AIR 1985 SC 106 National Insurance Company Limited V/s. Renuka Saha And Ors., 2010 0 ACJ 1936 : 2009 AIJ_WB 523202 Nhs West V/s. Shephard, 1964 0 AC 326 Parry V/s. Cleaver, 1970 0 AC 1 Redpath V/s. Belfast & County Down Ry, 1947 0 NI 167 Sarla Verma V/s. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 6 SCC 121 Sheikhupura Transport Co. Ltd. V/s. Northerin India Transporters Ins. Co. Ltd., 1971 1 SCC 785 United India Insurance Company Ltd Versus Rajwinder Kaur And Others Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation V/s. Natarajan, 2003 6 SCC 137 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Patricia Jean Mahajan And Ors., 2002 6 SCC 281 V. Jayaraj V/s. Thanthana Periyar Transport Corporation Ltd., 1989 2 LLJ 38 : 1987 AIJ_TN 1222468 Equivalent Citation(s): 2011 (1) TAC 48 : 2010 AIJ_PH 1655381 JUDGEMENT : - K.Kannan, J. 1 This batch of cases involves the issue of whether the representatives of the deceased, who have come by a financial benefit through ex gratia payments by the Government arising out of the death of the persons in the motor accident would stand to forfeit the benefit of compensation and if not, would that be relevant to slice down the compensation. The contrary position is what is contended on behalf of the claimants that ex -gratia payments are wholly irrelevant as the Tribunal has found and that they are entitled to a full compensation on the basis of the extent of dependence of the family as though no benefit has accrued and by the application of suitable multiplier commensurate with the age of the respective deceased at the time of the accident. II. Occurence of motor accident leading to deaths and injuries 2 In this batch of cases, FAO Nos. 3432, 3433, 3434 and 3487 relate to cases of deaths of persons, all of whom were Government servants in the State of Haryana. The accident is said to have taken place when on 24.07.2005, the Financial Commissioner and Secretary to Government of Haryana, Agriculture Development and Director of Agriculture Department had called a meeting with high -level officials of various government departments at Panchkula. Officials at various levels attended the meeting and while they were returning in a Government vehicle, they was a collision with a truck belonging to private individual and insured with the New India Assurance Company Limited. Some persons died and several were seriously injured. III. Text of Government notification 3 All the representatives have come by benefit of notification issued by the Haryana Government, General Administration Department dated 1.08.2006. The notification publishes the rules called the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006. The relevant rules are reproduced in so far as, they have a bearing to this case: 1. (1) These rules may be called the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006. (2) They shall come into force at once. 2. The object of the rule is to assist the family of a deceased/missing Government employee of Group C and D category, in tiding over the emergent situation, resulting from the loss of bread -earner while in regular service by giving financial assistance. 3. The eligibility to receive financial assistance under these rules shall be as per the provision in the pension/family pension scheme, 1964. 4. An eligible family member of the deceased/missing Government employee shall make an application i Form A for compassionate financial assistance.