27.01.2015 Views

1. This motor accident claim case has arisen out of an application ...

1. This motor accident claim case has arisen out of an application ...

1. This motor accident claim case has arisen out of an application ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

6<br />

17. Further, relying upon the Judgment in Oriental Insur<strong>an</strong>ce<br />

Comp<strong>an</strong>y Ltd. -vs- Sunita Rathi reported in (1998) 1 SCC 365, the<br />

Honourable Apex Court held that the policy does not cover risk <strong>of</strong> injury to<br />

the owner himself, <strong>an</strong>d as such the Insur<strong>an</strong>ce Comp<strong>an</strong>y is not liable to<br />

indemnify the owner. It was held that the owner <strong>of</strong> the vehicle c<strong>an</strong> only<br />

<strong>claim</strong> compensation provided a Personal Accident Insur<strong>an</strong>ce <strong>has</strong> been taken<br />

<strong>out</strong> <strong>an</strong>d in the absence <strong>of</strong> such policy, the Insur<strong>an</strong>ce comp<strong>an</strong>y is not liable to<br />

indemnify the owner.<br />

18. The Honourable Apex Court in Oriental Insur<strong>an</strong>ce<br />

Comp<strong>an</strong>y Ltd. -vs- Jhuma Saha <strong>an</strong>d ors. (2007) 9 SCC 263 reiterated the<br />

said principle. In the said <strong>case</strong>, the deceased was the owner <strong>of</strong> the insured<br />

vehicle <strong>an</strong>d the <strong>accident</strong> took place while he was driving the said vehicle.<br />

The Tribunal on <strong>an</strong> <strong>application</strong> u/s 166 <strong>of</strong> the M.V. Act awarded<br />

compensation holding that since the vehicle being insured <strong>an</strong>d <strong>an</strong> additional<br />

premium being paid for death <strong>of</strong> the driver or conductor, the liability was<br />

covered by the Insur<strong>an</strong>ce policy. On appeal preferred by the Insur<strong>an</strong>ce<br />

comp<strong>an</strong>y, the Honourable High Court held that in view <strong>of</strong> decision <strong>of</strong> the<br />

Honourable Apex Court in Nicolletta Rohtagi in 2002 ACJ 1950 (SC), the<br />

appeal was held to be not maintainable, <strong>an</strong>d aggrieved by the same, the<br />

Insur<strong>an</strong>ce comp<strong>an</strong>y preferred <strong>an</strong> appeal before the Honourable Apex Court.<br />

The question that fell for decision was whether jurisdiction <strong>of</strong> the Tribunal<br />

was restricted only to third party <strong>claim</strong>. Relying upon various Judgments<br />

including Dh<strong>an</strong>raj <strong>case</strong> (Supra), the Honourable Apex Court held that in<br />

view <strong>of</strong> the fact that additional premium was not paid in respect <strong>of</strong> the risk<br />

<strong>of</strong> death or bodily injury to the owner <strong>of</strong> the vehicle, Section 147 (1)(b) <strong>of</strong><br />

the M.V. Act, which in no uncertain terms covers the risk <strong>of</strong> a third party<br />

only, allowed the appeal filed by the Insur<strong>an</strong>ce comp<strong>an</strong>y.<br />

19. From the above Judgment <strong>of</strong> the Honourable Apex<br />

Court, it becomes abund<strong>an</strong>tly clear that Section 147 <strong>of</strong> the M.V. Act does<br />

not contemplate coverage <strong>of</strong> <strong>an</strong>y risk <strong>of</strong> bodily injury or death to the owner<br />

<strong>of</strong> the vehicle unless such risk is covered by the policy. Keeping in view the<br />

above referred Judgment <strong>of</strong> the Honourable Apex Court with all respect <strong>an</strong>d<br />

humility, I am <strong>of</strong> the opinion that the Judgment <strong>of</strong> the Honourable Gauhati

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!