Chattisgarh High Court
Icici Lombard General Insurance Co.Ltd vs (Deleted) Bhagwat Prasad Sinha 21 ... on 17 July, 2020
Bench: P. R. Ramachandra Menon, Parth Prateem Sahu
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
MAC No. 791 of 2013
{Arising out of order dated 23.02.2013 passed by learned 5 th Additional Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Durg in Claim Case No. 126 of 2011}
ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., through it's Legal Manager, ICICI
General Insurance Co. Ltd., Ground Floor, Vanijya Bhawan, Devendra Nagar
Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellant
Versus
1. Bhagwat Prasad Sinha, S/o Fandi Ram Sinha, aged about 65 years, R/o Near
Dhillon Nursing Home, Sindi Colony Station Road, Durg, Tahsil and District
Durg (C.G.)
2. Rohit Kumar Sinha, S/o Bhagwat Prasad Sinha, R/o Near Dhillon Nursing
Home, Sindi Colony Station Road, Durg, Tahsil and District Durg (C.G.)
---- Respondents
For Appellant/Insurance Company : Shri K. Rohan, Advocate.
For Respondents : None.
Hon'ble Shri P. R. Ramachandra Menon, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Judgment on Board Per P. R. Ramachandra Menon, Chief Justice 17.07.2020
1. Correctness of the award passed by the Tribunal in Claim Case No. 126 of 2011, awarding a compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs towards 'Personal Accident Coverage' as per the policy issued in respect of the vehicle bearing No. CG 07 2 6246 involved in a motor accident, leading to the death of the person concerned, is put to challenge by the Insurer of the vehicle.
2. Shri K. Rohan, the learned counsel appearing for the Appellant/Insurance Company submits that the claimant was driving the insured vehicle, which is a Mahindra Maxi Truck on 01.07.2008, belonging to the 2 nd Respondent, who is none other than the son of the claimant. While so, the claimant who was driving the vehicle lost control over the vehicle, which dashed against a tree, resulting in serious multiple injuries, leading to his death. This led to the claim petition.
3. The claim for compensation was resisted from the part of the Insurance Company, pointing out that, there was no liability for the Insurer, insofar as it was a self-invited accident and the policy did not provide for any such coverage. On conclusion the trial, the Tribunal virtually accepted the case put forth by the Insurer, with reference to the 'third party' coverage. However, observing that separate premium was collected for satisfying the 'personal accident of the owner' to an extent of Rs. 2 lakhs, the said amount was awarded; correctness of which is put to challenge by the Insurance Company.
4. The basic question to be considered is whether a person who has borrowed the vehicle from the owner and has sustained the injuries while driving the same could be treated as a 'third party', for awarding compensation in respect of the injuries or death occurred in the said accident ? The position has been answered by the Apex Court in Ningamma & Another v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in (2009) 13 SCC 710, whereby it has been held that, such person will be deemed as having stepped into the shoes of the owner and as such, he cannot be considered as a third party. The legal position was reiterated by the Apex Court in the recent decision as well, as held in Ramkhiladi vs The United India Insurance reported in (2020) 2 SCC 550, holding that a claim for compensation under such circumstance will not be 3 maintainable even under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'Act of 1988').
5. By virtue of the legal position as above, it is quite clear that the claim for compensation preferred was not liable to be entertained and the liability could not have been mulcted upon the Insurance Company.
6. But, here the question is whether any additional coverage, than the extent of coverage stipulated/envisaged under Section 147 of the Act of 1988, was sought for and provided by the Insurer ? The 'Schedule of Premium', as borne from Annexure D/1 is to the following effect:
SCHEDULE OF
PREMIMUM (IN
RS.)
Own Damage(A) Liability(B)
Basic Own Damage 4,129.00 Basic Third Party 5,580.00
Liability
Total 4,129.00 Paid Driver (Endt.IMT- 25.00
28)
Less PA Cover for Owner- 100.00
Driver of Rs. 2,00,000
Bonus Percent 825.80 Total 5,705.00
20.00%
Total -825.80
Total Own Damage 3303.00 Total Liability 5,705.00
Premium Premium
Total Package 9008.00
Premium (A+B)
Service Tax(Incl. 1,113.00
Edu. Cess And
Higher Edu. Cess)
Total Premium (in Rs.) 10,121.00
4
7. From the figures given above, it is clear that the Insurance Company had agreed to cover the 'personal accident of the owner' to an extent of 'Rs. 2 lakhs' by accepting the additional premium of Rs. 100/-. Since the denial of the 'third party compensation' is on the principle that the person concerned had stepped into the shoes of the owner, who cannot get a coverage under the policy issued in favour of the owner, it has to be held that the 'Personal Accident Coverage' is to be extended to such person as well, to the extent the requisite premium has been accepted by the Insurer. This aspect has been considered by the Tribunal as given in 'paragraph 16' of the award, which is to the following effect:
"(16) iz0Mh0&1 tks fd okgu Lokeh vFkok chfer ds] Loa; ds nq?kZVukdkfjr gksus ds laca/k esa fdu fLFkfr;ksa esa chek daiuh }kjk fjLd dOgj fd;k tk;sxk] crk;k x;k gS] mDr lkj.kh ds vkyksd esa vkosnd dh nq?kZVuk ls mRiUu fu;ksZX;rk] orZeku ekeysa esa fpfdRlh; lk{kh MkW0 Ogh0,l0 c?ksy ds vuqlkj 100 izfr'kr dh LFkk;h viaxrk crkbZ xbZ gS rRlaca/k esa fpfdRld lk{kh }kjk LFkk;h fodykWxrk izek.k i= iz0ih0&110 esa fpfdRld }kjk 100 izfr'kr dh LFkk;h viaxr mYysf[kr dh xbZ gSA mDr LFkk;h fodykWxrk izek.k i= iz0ih0&110 izfr'kr esa mYysf[kr 100 izfr'kr LFkk;h fodykWxrk dks vukosndx.k }kjk RkkfRod pqukSrh ugha ns;s tkus ls ml ij vfo'okl fd;s tkus dk dksbZ dkj.k ugha gSA QyRk% vkosnd dks iz'uxr nq?kZVuk ls mith LFkk;h fodykWxrk izFke n`"V;k 100 izfr'kr ekuk tkuk mfpr izrhr gksrk gSA fpfdRld lk{kh ds dFkuksa ds vk/kkj ij ;g ekuk tkuk mfpr izrhr gksrk gSA fpfdRld lk+{kh ds dFkuksa ds vk/kkj ij ;g ekuk tkuk lqjf{kr gksxk fd vkosnd dks nq?kZVuk ds QyLo:i LFkk;h viaxrk "permanent Total disablement" dh Js.kh esa FkhA mijksDr foef'kZr fof/k ,ao rF;ksa ds vkyksd esa vf/kdj.k bl fu"d"kZ ij igqWprh gS fd Hkys gh vkosnd dks nkok vUrZxr /kkjk 163 ¼,½ ds vUrZxr ;|fi r`rh;
i{kdkj dh gSfl;r u fnykbZ tk,] rFkkfi vkosnd ls] chek daiuh }kjk Lokeh&pkyd ds O;fDrxr nq?kZVuk ds izfriwfrZ gsrq 2]00]000@&:0 dh ykbZfcfyVh ds laca/k esa 1]00@& :0 izhfe;e fy;s tkus ds dkj.k] vkosnd dks iz'uxr okgu ls mRiUUk nq?kZVuk ls mls dkfjr 100 izfr'kr dh LFkk;h viaxrk ds en esa 2]00]000@�¼v{kjh nks yk[k #0½ {kfriwfrZ chek daiuh }kjk fn;k tkuk mfpr gksxkA"
8. It is evident, that the eligibility has been fixed by the Tribunal only to an extent of Rs. 2 lakhs, towards the 'Personal Accident Coverage' given to the owner by accepting an additional premium. This being the position, the Tribunal was perfectly justified in granting the said amount, insofar as there is no case for the 5 Appellant/Insurance Company that no coverage was provided to the owner towards the personal accident or that no additional premium was collected. On the other hand, since the factual position as to the collection of additional premium for providing wider coverage in respect of personal accident to the owner is admitted, we are of the view that there is absolutely no merit in the appeal. In the said circumstance, interference is declined and the appeal stands dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(P. R. Ramachandra Menon) (Parth Prateem Sahu)
Chief Justice Judge
Brijmohan