Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance ... vs Vikrant Son Of Jasbir Singh And Another on 9 January, 2014
Author: K. Kannan
Bench: K. Kannan
FAO No.3596 of 2011 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
FAO No.3596 of 2011
Date of Decision.09.01.2014
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited .......Appellant
Versus
Vikrant son of Jasbir Singh and another ......Respondents
Present: Mr. Subhash Goyal, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. Amit Singla, Advocate
for respondent No.1.
2. FAO No.4349 of 2011
Vikrant son of Jasbir Singh .......Appellant
Versus
Anup Khatri and another ......Respondents
Present: Mr. Amit Singla, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. Subhash Goyal, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment ? No
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No
-.-
K. KANNAN J. (ORAL)
1. The insurance company is in appeal against the award of ` 1,85,000/- awarded in favour of the claimant. The claimant was the borrower from the owner of the vehicle a motor cycle and he had dashed against a culvert and come by injuries. The claim was made contending that there was a comprehensive insurance cover and the Kamboj Pankaj Kumar 2014.01.14 12:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh FAO No.3596 of 2011 -2- liability shall be borne by the insurance company. The Court relied on a judgment of this Court in New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Umesh Kumari 2010 (1) RCR Civil 669 and assessed a compensation as payable by the insurance company.
2. With respect, I would find the law stated is not correct. The case is fully covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in Ningamma and another Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 2009(3) RCR Civil 435 that dealt with a claim under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act for a person who had borrowed the vehicle and had come by injuries. A borrower of a vehicle merely gets into shoes of the insured in so far as any liability is to be borne for a third party claim. If the borrower himself comes by any injury, there is no provision for a claim for insurance against the insured. Even the comprehensive policy will only protect a claim sought by a third party or for own damage. I have seen through the terms of the policy that the policy is for covering the liability for third person and a premium of ` 800/- has been paid and for personal accident cover for owner-driver of ` 2 lacs, a premium of ` 100/- has been paid. The personal accident must be understood as wholly personal to the person who is insured and the personal accident cover for an owner-driver is for owner who was also driver. The term of the policy is, "the owner driver is the insured named in the policy." The liability cannot be fastened on the insurance company for a claim at the instance of a borrower of a vehicle and personal accident cannot be understood as extending the liability for a person who was not the insured. The liability cast on the insurance company was, therefore, untenable and the claim against the insurer was not possible. Kamboj Pankaj Kumar 2014.01.14 12:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh FAO No.3596 of 2011 -3-
3. The only claim which is still possible is on the basis of no fault under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. In this case, the claimant is reported to have suffered a fracture and the doctor had also assessed him to suffer permanent disability. For permanent disability arising through use of a motor accident, the statutory maximum is ` 25,000/- under Section 140 of the Act and that is all the liability that could be fastened on the insurance company. The award of the Tribunal is modified and the liability of the insurance company is attached to an extent of ` 25,000/- with interest.
4. The appeal by the insurance company in FAO No.3596 of 2011 is allowed and the appeal by the claimant under Section 4349 of 2011 for enhancement is dismissed.
(K. KANNAN) JUDGE January 09, 2014 Pankaj* Kamboj Pankaj Kumar 2014.01.14 12:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh