Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. Learned Judge has considered each of these aspects as separate issues. He has considered various judgments and held that the claim under Section 163-A was maintainable whether or not the deceased was a tortfeasor and because the deceased earned less than Rs. 40,000 per annum. He has also held that the deceased was a 'third party' within the meaning of M.V. Act and 'any person' under Section 147(1)(b)(i) of the M.V. Act as well as a 'victim' under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act.

6. It would first have to be decided whether the deceased fell within the aforesaid terms and if so, whether the claim under Section 163-A could be legitimately made, without considering his tortious liability and upon considering his annual income.

8. Section II of the insurance policy deals with liability to third parties. Under that section the insurance company agreed to indemnify the insured in the event of an accident arising out of the insured vehicle against all the sums which the insured would become legally liable to pay in respect of death or bodily injury to 'any person' including occupants carried in the insured vehicle. This liability is under Section 147 of the M.V. Act. Consequently, under that clause the insurance company agreed to indemnify any driver who drove the vehicle on the order of the insured (respondent No. 2) or upon his permission and who followed the terms, exceptions and conditions of the policy. This was the indemnity against the third party liability. Consequently, it was to indemnify for any liability to any third party. This indemnity was towards any act of the driver. Such indemnity means and includes a contract or promise to save the insured from the loss caused to him by the act of the driver. Hence, if the driver was liable to any third party and consequently the owner incurred vicarious liability, the insurance company would indemnify the owner of the vehicle, provided the driver fell within the terms, exceptions and conditions of the policy. This necessarily implies that the driver was at fault. He would, therefore, incur liability. That would be tortious liability. The insurance company would, therefore, indemnify the owner against any third party liability. This indemnity is the statutory liability of the insurance company in case of contracts of such insurance. The purpose of the indemnity is to pay compensation to a third party, i.e., a party who is an outsider--other than the two parties to the contract of insurance--the insurance company and the insured or any other person capable of being insured under the contract of insurance. Since the 'others'--the world at large, viz., the pedestrians, passers-by, etc., who can never be one of the contracting parties, but who may be involved in an accident, the insurance company owes a statutory liability to indemnify the owner/driver due to whose act some other innocent party has suffered death or injury. Such a third party, therefore, can never be the person who could have been one of the contracting parties or who could have been covered under the contract of insurance/policy, by way of payment of additional premium.