Kerala High Court
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Sasilatha on 1 October, 1999
Equivalent citations: I(2000)ACC264, 2000ACJ661
JUDGMENT K.K. Usha, J.
1. This is an appeal at the instance of the insurance company challenging the award passed against it by the M.A.C.T., Punalur in O.P. (MV) No. 1082 of 1993. Petition was filed before the Tribunal by the owner of a jeep under Sections 140 and 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming damages for bodily injury sustained by her in an accident involving the jeep which belonged to her and a bus belonging to the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation on 17.11.1992. On the basis of the evidence, Tribunal came to the conclusion that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the K.S.R.T.C. bus, but, on the other hand, accident happened only due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the jeep.
2. Appellant insurance company contended before the Tribunal that the petitioner being the insured, she cannot put forward any claim from the insurance company. Under the terms of the contract between the insurer and the insured, obligation of the insurer is only to indemnify the insured in respect of any liability which is cast on her pursuant to a motor vehicle accident. The Tribunal apparently accepted the above contention, but, then proceeded to consider the claim of the petitioner under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It then held that since the petitioner sustained injury in an accident occurred for no fault of hers, she can be compensated by taking recourse to the provisions contained under Section 140 of the Act. Thus, an amount of Rs. 12,000 was granted to the petitioner as compensation and the appellant insurance company, her own insurer, was made liable to pay the amount.
3. In this appeal, mainly two contentions are raised by the insurance company. Firstly, it is submitted that liability of the insurer arises only when the insured is held liable. In the absence of a finding regarding the liability of the insured, insurer cannot be compelled to compensate the insured. Secondly, it was contended that there is no finding entered by the Tribunal that the petitioner had sustained an injury causing permanent disablement as contemplated by Section 142 of the Motor Vehicles Act. If that be so, she cannot make any claim under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. On both these grounds, it is contended by the learned counsel for the insurance company that the award passed by the Tribunal has to be set aside.
4. In Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sunita Rathi 1998 ACJ 121 (SC), the Apex Court has spoken about the nature of the liability of the insurer. It is held that the liability of the insurer arises only when the liability of the insured has been upheld for the purpose of indemnifying the insured under the contract of insurance. It is, therefore, clear that if the insured is not held liable, insurer cannot be directed to indemnify the insured. The only liability for the insurer is to indemnify the insured and not to pay any compensation for alleged bodily injuries sustained by her. Appellant is fully justified in contending that the petitioner is not entitled to any compensation under Section 140 also. A reading of Section 140 would make it clear that no fault liability is cast on the owner of the vehicle and not directly on the insurer. If the owner of the vehicle is found liable under Section 140, naturally, the liability of the insurer also would arise. In this case, the owner herself has come forward for compensation under Section 140 against the insurer of her own vehicle which was held to be the offending vehicle. Such a claim cannot be maintained under Section 140. Apart from the above, there is no finding in this case that the petitioner had suffered permanent disablement to make her eligible for compensation under Section 140. For all these reasons, we find that the Tribunal has erred in granting an award in favour of the petitioner in O.P. (MV) No. 1082 of 1993.
In the result, the award is set aside and the appeal stands allowed.