Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
United India Insurance Company Limited vs Y. Chandra Rao And Anr. on 31 October, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2003(2)ALD267
JUDGMENT V.V.S. Rao, J.
1. A short, but interesting, question arises for consideration in this appeal filed by the United India Insurance Company Limited under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act'). The appeal is filed aggrieved by the judgment dated 19.12.1996 in O.P.No.240 of 1992 passed by the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-the Court of II Additional District Judge, Cuddapah awarding a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the first respondent herein as compensation for the damage caused to jeep bearing NO.ADD 240.
2. The first respondent's jeep was damaged in an accident involving bus owned by the second respondent herein on 9.12.1991. The accident occurred, as found by the lower Tribunal, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the APSRTC bus. The Tribunal recorded a finding that under Ex.B. 1 policy, the insurer, the appellant herein, with whom the jeep was insured, is also liable to pay the damages. An amount of Rs. 10,000/- was awarded for the damage caused to the jeep.
3. In this appeal, the learned Counsel for the appellant Sri K.L.N. Rao submits that the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal constituted under Section 165 of the Act has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim by the insured claiming compensation for damages to his property. This is refuted by the learned Counsel for the first respondent as well as the second respondent. The learned Counsel for the appellant also submits that the finding recorded by the lower Tribunal apportioning liability between insurer and APSRTC is unsustainable.
4. The point that arises for consideration is whether the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain a claim for compensation towards damage to the property of the insured.
5. Chapter XI of the Act deals with insurance of motor vehicles against third party risks. The law requires every person to insure motor vehicle and obtain a policy of insurance complying with the requirements of Chapter XI of the Act before the vehicle is put to use in public place. Section 147 of the Act contains requirements of the policy and limits of the liability under the policy required to be obtained under Section 146 of the Act. A reading of Sections 146 and 147 of the Act together it becomes very clear that the owner of the motor vehicle using the same in public place has to obtain a policy of insurance against third party risks only. There is no requirement under the Act to obtain policy insuring life or property of the insured.
6. Chapter XII deals with the Claims Tribunals; constitution of the Tribunals, powers and functions of the Tribunals etc. It is necessary to notice Sub-section (1) of Section 165 of the Act, which reads as under.
165(1). A State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute one, or more Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals (hereinafter in the Chapter referred to Claims Tribunal) for such area as may be specified in the notification for the purpose of adjudicating upon claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving the death of, or bodily injury to, persons arising out of the use of Motor vehicles, or damages to any property of a third party so arising, or both.
7. Under law, the State Government is required to constitute Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunals or Tribunals for the purpose of adjudicating upon the claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving death or bodily injury to persons arising out of use of motor vehicles or damages to property. The claims in respect of death or bodily injury or damage to property can only be preferred by a third party which is defined under Section 145(g) of the Act to mean as to include the Government. Being an inclusive definition it should receive expanded meaning having regard to the provisions of Sections 146 and 147 which only specify persons died or receiving bodily injuries in accidents involving motor vehicles. The owner of the vehicle, whose vehicle is damaged or whose property is damaged in the accident involving motor vehicle ex facie is not covered under the provisions of Sections 146 and 147 of the Act. Therefore, it must be construed that the Tribunal constituted under Section 165 of the Act is not vested with the power to adjudicate the claims by the owners of motor vehicle and under law they are required to obtain policy" of insurance covering third party risk.
8. As rightly contended by Sri K.LN. Rao it is however open for the insurer and the insured by consensus ad idem to incorporate additional covenant enhancing the scope of the insurance beyond what is required by Sections 146 and 147. In such an event subject to the insured paying additional premium as may be agreed to, there can be a case where a policy of the insurance can as well cover the death or bodily injury in a motor accident of the owner of the vehicle. Even such an event by applying language of Section 165 of the Act, the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal is not vested with the jurisdiction. A reference may be made to Oriental Fire and Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shakuntala Devi, , decided by a Division Bench of Allahabad High Court. The case arises under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. A distinction was made between "contract liability" and "Act liability" and it was held:
Sections 95 and 96 must be read together. Section 95(1)(b) of the Act makes the insurer liable to indemnify any liability which may be incurred by the insured. There is a use of the words 'incurred by him.' The word 'him' refers to the insured. When the insured is dead, then the question of indemnifying liability of deceased insured does not arise. The contractual liability by the insurance company under the above quoted Section 95 of the Act ceases as soon as the insured is dead. The liability does not extend to the heirs of the deceased. Section 96 of the Act also says that after a certificate of insurance has been issued in favour of the person by whom a policy has been effected and a judgment in respect of such liability as is required to be covered by a policy under Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 95 (being a liability covered by the terms of the policy) is obtained against any person insured by the policy, then the insurer is liable to pay to the person entitled to the benefit of the decree the sum specified in the insurance policy. In the cases of instant nature no judgment can be passed against the insured. Hence, the question of indemnification does not arise.
9. A Division Bench of this Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v, Odeti Mallu Bai, 1995 ACJ 851 (AP), considered the question whether insurance company is liable to pay compensation to the heirs of the owners of the vehicle involved in accident while driving the vehicle. After referring to the relevant case law in M. Akkawa v. New India Assurance Co., Ltd., 1988 ACJ 445 (Karnataka), and Mathew Koshy v. Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd., 1989 ACJ 21 (Kerala), it was held that the liability of the insurance company is to indemnify the insured against the claim of the third party, but not to pay compensation for injuries or death of the insured-owner of the vehicle who died while driving the vehicle in the accident. It was also held that the mere fact that the policy is a comprehensive policy does not necessarily mean that it covers the liability arising due to bodily injury or death of the insured himself. It is to be mentioned that the Division Bench of this Court in Odeti Mallu Bai's case (supra) was interpreting the provisions of Sections 95 and 96 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 which are in pari materia with Sections 146 and 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
10. Therefore, in view of the binding authority of the Division Bench of this Court in Odeti Mallu Bai 's case (supra), it must be held that the first respondent herein is not entitled to seek adjudication of any claim before the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal constituted under Section 165 of the Act. The remedy lies elsewhere.
11. In the result, the appeal filed by the insurer is allowed. In view of my findings in the appeal, I see no reason to accept the cross-objections and are accordingly dismissed. No costs.