NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. HEMLATA LUCKSOM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 31/8/2005, at around 05.00 a.m., a car (Maruti 800) went off the road, into the river below, truncating the life of the Claimant's son, Junar Lucksom. He was travelling in the vehicle along with three of his neighbours. All the occupants of the vehicle perished in the accident and their bodies remained unrecovered. Although the vehicle was recovered, the documents pertaining to the vehicle remained untraced. The victim at the relevant time was aged about thirty-two years and said to have been earning Rs.12,500.00 (Rupees twelve thousand and five hundred) only. The Claimant (Respondent No.1 herein), filed a Petition under Sec. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter, the 'MV Act'), seeking compensation of Rs.20,15,000.00(Rupees twenty lakhs and fifteen thousand) only. The Appellant who was arrayed as one of the two Respondents before the Learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gangtok, Sikkim (hereinafter, the 'MACT'), contested the Claim Petition on grounds that, as no other vehicle was involved in the accident thus rash and negligent driving could not be established. That, there was neither any statutory liability nor contractual obligation, on the part of the insurance company to pay compensation to the Claimant as the compensation, if any would be payable by the owner of the vehicle. That, the insurance policy was a 'Private Car Liability Policy' which thereby covers only the Personal Accident Claim. The Respondent No.3, the owner of the vehicle, also contested the Claim Petition on grounds that all the documents of the accident vehicle were valid and effective at the time of the accident. The driver had a valid driving licence, hence the liability to pay compensation was on the insurance company.

(2.) On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Learned MACT settled the following issues for determination;

(3.) Aggrieved with the finding of the MACT, the Appellant is before this Court, assailing the Judgment in MACT Case No.50 of 2019 (Hemlata Lucksom vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Others), dtd. 21/3/2023. Learned Counsel for the Appellant contended that the vehicle in accident was a private car and it is a well settled principle that an occupant in a private car is not a third party. That, in all likelihood the deceased was an unauthorized passenger in the accident vehicle. The insured having paid an additional premium of Rs.300.00 (Rupees three hundred) only, the Appellant had a limited liability of Rs.2,00,000.00 (Rupees two lakhs) only, per person. That, there was no statutory liability nor contractual obligation on the part of the Appellant to pay the compensation to the Claimant or to indemnify the owner of the vehicle, in light of the above circumstances. That, the owner of the vehicle was liable to make good the compensation. To bolster his submissions, reliance was placed on New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs. Sadanand Mukhi and Others AIR 2009 SC 1788 and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Jhuma Saha (Smt.) and Others (2007) 9 SCC 263.