(1.) THIS is insurer's appeal challenging the impugned award dated 25.7.2008 whereby compensation has been granted to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on account of death of Pawan Kumar in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 21.9.2005. The offending vehicle was duly insured with the appellant.
(2.) THE grievance of the appellant before this court is that no liability could be fastened upon the appellant as deceased Pawan Kumar was not a third party and, therefore, the claim petition which was filed under section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the appellant was not maintainable. According to the counsel for the appellant, section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 lays down that the owner of the motor vehicle or the authorised insurer shall be liable to pay compensation in case of death or permanent disability due to accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle as indicated in the Second Schedule to the legal heirs or the victims as the case may be. Since there was no tortfeasor, therefore, the appellant was not liable to pay any compensation. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on (i) Dhanraj v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2005 ACJ 1 (SC); (ii) Ningamma v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2009 ACJ 2020 (SC); and (iii) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sadanand Mukhi, 2009 ACJ 998 (SC).
(3.) THERE is no dispute with the proposition of law as canvassed by learned counsel for the appellant. However, a perusal of the impugned award would show that the insurance policy, Exh. R1, was a Comprehensive Policy and the insured had paid premium towards compulsory P.A. to the owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle. In view of the aforesaid fact, the argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is not sustainable.