Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

23. The object can be viewed from yet another angle. The innocent victims of hit-and-run motor accidents who are taken to be passers-by, pedestrians, etc. are the ones who fall short of the required evidence. The passengers who are in the vehicle itself or the owner or his driver, or gratuitous or paid employee cannot be put in the same position as innocent victims who are other party, viz., third parties. It is in this context that the extent of the term 'victim' must be appreciated, specifically given the fact that it forms a part of Section 163-A in the same Chapter relating to third party risks and hit-and-run motor accident cases.

43. Though the application is under Section 163-A, which does not require proof of negligence for claiming compensation, the requirements of the policy and the limits of liability of the insurance company would be under Section 147 of M.V. Act and no other. Consequently, the term 'any person', as including only a third party which, upon a consideration of the aforesaid cases excludes the gratuitous driver, a gratuitous passenger, the employee of the owner or a pillion rider in the absence of a specific cover must apply to the driver of the motor cycle who met with the fatal accident also. Upon the same analogy, therefore, the 'victim' under Section 163-A would exclude these persons. It would include only third parties which are taken to be pedestrians, passers-by and such other persons not in the motor vehicle and who specifically could not be covered under the insurance policy. It would also not include a person himself negligent and on whose account even the owner would not be vicariously liable as he cannot claim damages. As held in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kantabai , by the Division Bench of this Court it is difficult to entertain the contention that the liability in respect of tortfeasor himself would be covered by the insurance company and that such tortfeasor (or his legal heir) could sue the insurance company under the contract of indemnity or under law of Torts to pay compensation. Hence no driver can claim compensation for the accident de son tort. Consequently, the liberal construction of Section 163-A of the M.V. Act sought by the advocate of respondent No. 1 cannot be granted, ignoring the very purpose of the legislation and which would render it liable to large scale abuse of drivers neither confirming with standards of care and caution and owners not taking cover against such action by a special contract with insurance companies upon payments of the requisite premium to cover such risks.

44. Consequently, the claim of respondent No. 1 granted by the learned trial Judge cannot be sustained against the appellants. The appellant insurance company is not liable to indemnify the owner for the death of the gratuitous driver of the insured motor cycle (since he was not otherwise covered under the Workmen's Compensation Act) as a 'victim'. Hence, the appeal succeeds. The judgment and order of the learned trial Judge dated 16.6.2005 granting compensation of Rs. 4,12,500 against the appellant insurance company is set aside. Liability of respondent No. 2, who never opposed the original claim and who has not appeared in this appeal also, is not interfered with.