Punjab-Haryana High Court
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Darshan Kaur Etc. on 11 August, 2000
Equivalent citations: I(2001)ACC681, 2001ACJ998, (2000)126PLR826
Author: M.L. Singhal
Bench: M.L. Singhal
JUDGMENT M.L. Singhal, J.
1. Vide order dated 18.7.1998, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sirsa awarded Rs. 50,000/- as compensation under head "no fault liability to Smt. Darshan Kaur and others-claimants in claim application filed by them against United India Insurance Company Limited etc. under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for the grant of compensation to them on account of the death of their bread-winner Harjinder Singh. As per the facts put forth in the claim application Harjinder Singh was travelling on 18.1.1997 in Canter No. DL-IL-6251 which was owned by him. On the way tyre of the Canter burst and as a result of mishap, Harjinder Singh suffered fatal injuries. Canter was being driven by Gurnam Singh. It was insured with the United India Insurance Company Limited.
2. Aggrieved from this award passed under the "no fault liability", United India Insurance Company Limited has come up in revision to this court by invoking its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the United India Insurance Company Limited is not liable to reimburse the claimants. United India Insurance Company Limited would have been liable to reimburse if some body else had died while travelling by this Canter in accident. It is submitted that the contract of insurance entered into between Harjinder Singh and the insurer (United India Insurance Company Limited) is that the insurer will compensate the third party if it suffers injury or death and Harjinder Singh is called upon to compensate third party or the defendants of that third party. In support of this submission, he has drawn my attention to Hemlata Sahu and Ors. v. Ramadhar and Anr., 2000 A.C.J. 134 - which is judgment of a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court where Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that the basis of insurance is that if any liability arises then the insurance company shall be liable to indemnify the third party on behalf of the insured. But in case when the insured himself meets with an accident and dies then that risk is not covered by the insurance policy. The liability of insurance company is to compensate the insured towards the risk of third party and to satisfy the judgment and award passed against the insured.
4. Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act says that the insurer is only to satisfy the award against the vehicle insured in respect of third party risk. Reading of Section 147 and 149 of the Act suggests quite clearly that the liability of the insurance company is to compensate the insured towards the risk of third party and to satisfy the judgment and award passed against the insured."
5. In M. Akkavva v. New India Assurance Company Limited, 1988 A.C.J, 445 (Karnataka) was involved a goods vehicle and son of the owner of the goods vehicle was accompanying the goods of his father being carried in the vehicle and the vehicle met with accident due to the negligence of its driver. Question arose whether the owner of the vehicle is to be compensated. Their Lordships of the Karnataka High Court held that owner of the vehicle who has the benefit of indemnity is himself not covered and his representative is in no better position unless he be an employee covered by the first proviso of Section 95(1)(b) of the Act. The idea behind this ratio was that the son was in no better position than the owner i.e. his father. In that case, the son of the owner of the goods vehicle was accompanying the goods and not as an employee. It was observed that basically, a contract of motor insurance seeks to idemnify the owner of the vehicle against liability arising out of claims of third parties arising against the insured owner out of the use of the motor vehicle. A contract of insurance which stipulates to pay compensation for the death of the insured person himself cannot be said to be a contract of indemnity. If the owner of the vehicle, who has the benefit of indemnity is himself not covered by the the policy, his representatives unless he be an employee covered' by the first proviso to Section 95(1)(b), is in no better position in relation to the insurer's obligation or the absence of it."
6. In Mathew Koshy v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 1989 A.C.J. 21 High Court of Kerala took same view that the right to receive compensation can only be against a person who is bound to compensate due to failure to perform a legal obligation. Compulsory insurance is to idemnify the owner of the vehicle from the liability, if any, but if the owner himself suffers an injury in an accident, he does not acquire any right to get compensation from the insurance company. A personal accident insurance policy alone can cover this claim and the policy issued to the claimant was not a personal accident insurance policy and it does not cover such liability. In United India Insurance Company Limited v. Lakshmi, 1990 A.C.J. 390, Madras High Court held that the owner of the lorry or the insured having himself died in the accident, caused by his own driver and there being no liability on his part or on the part of his legal representatives, towards any third party, the insurance company's liability does not at all arise. Similar view was taken by the both Bombay and Allahabad High Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kantabai, 1991 A.C.J. 22 (Bombay) and Oriental Fire & General Insurance Company Limited v. Shakuntala Devi, 1991 A.C.J. 177 respectively. The reason for this view is that the insurance company insures the liability of the insured and does not insure the insured. Under the comprehensive policy owner can only claim compensation for the damage caused to the vehicle insured.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submitted that the principle enunciated in the aforesaid authorities will not be attracted here as here only compensation has been awarded under the head "no fault liability." As to whether the insurance company is or is not liable will be determined when the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act will be disposed of.
8. In Oriental Insurance Co. Limited v. Rangji and Ors., 1990, A.C.J. 775, it was held that defences available to the insurance company cannot be looked into where it is sought to be held liable under the head " no fault liable."
9. Suffice it to say, the very head suggests "no fault liability" suggests that at the stage of awarding compensation under this head, it is not to be seen whether the driver of the offending vehicle was at fault or the victim was at fault. Under the head "no fault liability" compensation has to be awarded irrespective of the fact whether victim was at fault or the driver of the offending vehicle was at fault. In this case, question is whether the insurance company was liable for the death of insured himself. Insurance Company is liable to idemnify the third party on behalf of the insured. In case the insured himself meets with accident and dies, that risk is not covered by the insurance policy. Liability of the insurance company is to compensate the insured towards the risk of third party and to satisfy the judgment and award passed against the insured.
10. Against an order passed under "no fault liability" United India Insurance Company has come up in revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of .India. Under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, High Court exercises power of supervision over all Courts and Tribunals exercising jurisdiction within its territorial jurisdiction. In exercise of the power of supervision vesting in this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court can examine and see that no Court of Tribunal within its territorial jurisdiction over steps the limits of its jurisdiction.
11. For the reasons given above, this revision succeeds and is allowed. Impugned order is set aside.