Chattisgarh High Court
The New India Assurance Co.Ltd vs Khilawan Singh Baghel And Others 52 ... on 18 January, 2018
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
MAC No. 1109 of 2011
The New India Assurance Co.Ltd. through its Branch Manager,
Branch Office, GE Road, Power House, Bhilai, Distt. Durg (CG).
---- Appellant
Versus
1. Khilawan Singh Baghel S/o Shri Bhup Singh Baghel, aged 50 years.
2. Smt. Padma Baghel W/o Khilawan Singh Baghel, aged about 47 years.
3. Both R/o Jawahar Nagar, Durg PS Mohan Nagar, Tah. & Distt. Durg (CG).
4. Ravindra Singh Baghel S/o Khilawan Singh Baghel, R/o Jawahar Nagar,
Durg, PS Mohan Nagar, Durg.
---- Respondents
For Appellant : Shri Dashrath Gupta, Advocate.
SB: Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Judgment on Board 18.01.2018
1. The present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act has been filed by the insurance company assailing the award dated 08.07.2011 passed by the 3rd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg (in short, the Tribunal) in Claim Case No.247 of 2011. Vide the said impugned award, the Tribunal in an application under Section 163-A of MV Act has awarded a compensation of Rs.2,07,000/- with interest @ 7.5 percent per annum from the date of application.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that it is a case where the deceased was the brother of the owner and that he was not an employee of the owner and therefore he cannot be brought within the ambit of a third party for covering the risk. He submits that it is 2 also a case where the claimants are the parents of the deceased and that the policy issued was a package policy covering the risk of owner-cum-driver and an extra premium was also taken with a limited liability of Rs.2,00,000/-.
3. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, considering the fact that extra premium was charged covering the risk of owner-cum- driver and the fact that the deceased was brother of the owner, for all practical purpose, the deceased shall step into the shoes of the owner and for which extra premium which has been collected by the insurance company shall come into play for indemnifying the owner.
4. Under such circumstances, the appeal of the insurance company does not have much force except for the fact that the liability of the insurance company shall be limited to the extent of Rs.2,00,000/-. In this instant case, since the difference amount is only Rs.7,000/- beyond the prescribed limit of Rs.2,00,000/-, this court does not incline to interfere with the liability part awarded by the Tribunal.
5. The appeal thus fails and is accordingly dismissed. The appellant- insurance company shall honor the award at the earliest.
Sd/-
(P.Sam Koshy) Judge inder