INDIRA DEVI Vs. NARESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the award dated 12.2.2008, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Fast Track) Kotputli, District Jaipur, whereby the learned Tribunal has exonerated the Insurance Company from the liability of paying the compensation amount of Rs.3,69,500/-, the appellants-claimants have approached this Court.

(2.) Shortly, the facts of the case are that according to the appellants, Santosh Kumar was riding a scooter. When he reached Handi Ka Bas Tan Macha, the scooter collided with a person who was going ahead. Consequently, Santosh Kumar fell from the scooter and sustained grievous injuries. Subsequently, he died. Deprived of the bread earner of the family, the appellants filed a claim petition before the Tribunal. The respondents filed their written statements and denied the averments made in the claim petition. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed five issues. It recorded the evidence adduced by the parties. After hearing both the parties, vide order dated 12.2.2008, the learned Tribunal granted a compensation of Rs.3,69,500/- in favour of the appellants. However, it exonerated the Insurance Company from the liability of payment of the said compensation amount. Hence, this petition before this Court.

(3.) Mr. Vinay Mathur, the learned counsel for the appellants, has vehemently contended that according to the learned Tribunal, the vehicle was insured for "OD claim", "owners claim" and "third party claim". According to the evidence available on record, the respondent No.1, Naresh, son of the deceased, was the owner of the vehicle. The vehicle was insured with the respondent No.2, the Oriental Insurance Company. Thus, the contract was between the Insurance Company and Naresh. The contract was not between the Insurance Company and the deceased. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the deceased was "a third party". Since the vehicle was insured for third party claim, the Insurance Company was certainly liable. Moreover, the claim petition was filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicle Act ('the Act', for short). Section 163A of the Act begins with the non-obstante clause. Therefore, it overrides the requirements of Section 147 of the Act. Hence, the learned Tribunal has erred in absolving the Insurance Company from its liability to pay the compensation amount. In order to buttress this contention, the learned counsel has relied upon the case of Deepal Girish Bhai Soni & Ors. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Baroda, 2004 5 SCC 385 and on the case of United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Rekha & Ors.,2007 RAR 435].