Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 5067 of 2007
PETITIONER:
New India Assurance Co. Ltd
RESPONDENT:
Kendra Devi & Ors
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 31/10/2007
BENCH:
Tarun Chatterjee & P. Sathasivam
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
(Arising out of S.L.P.(c) No. 7686 of 2006)
P.Sathasivam,J
1) Leave granted.
2) Questioning the orders of the High Court of Uttaranchal
at Nainital dated 24.08.2004 in A.O. No. 436 of 2001 and
dated 27.10.2005 in R.A. No.8 of 2005, New India Assurance
Company Ltd. through its Regional Manager, New Delhi has
filed the above appeal.
3) Brief facts are as follows:
Smt. Kendra Devi, respondent No.1 herein, filed Claim
Petition - M.A.C. No.4 of 1994, before the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Uttarkashi, claiming compensation of
Rs.4,67,000/- on account of death of her husband in a motor
vehicle accident. According to respondent No.1 herein, her
husband, Prakash Singh Parmar, was the owner and driver of
Taxi No. UMX 491. On 10.11.1993 while her husband was
going from Matali to Uttarkashi, he lost control over the
vehicle and met with an accident due to which the vehicle
rolled into the river Bhagirathi near Barrthi. Her husband
sustained fatal injuries in the accident and succumbed to the
injuries at the spot. According to respondent No.1, at the time
of the accident her husband was earning Rs.3000/- per
month.
4) Before the Tribunal, the appellant, New India Assurance
Co. Ltd. contended that the vehicle was insured only for five
persons whereas it was carrying eight passengers, therefore,
the owner and driver of the vehicle violated the terms and
conditions of the Insurance Policy, in view of the same, they
are not liable to pay compensation to the claimants. The
Tribunal, based on the materials before it, after finding that
the driver of the vehicle had valid licence and taking note of
the age of the deceased i.e., 50 years, by applying multiplier of
ten, awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,25,000/- along with
interest @ 12%. Aggrieved by the said award, the Insurance
Company filed an appeal before the High Court. The High
Court, after finding no infirmity and illegality in the order
passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, dismissed the
appeal and the review application filed by the Insurance
Company was also dismissed. Against the said orders of the
High Court, the New India Assurance Company Ltd. filed the
present appeal.
5) Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant-New
India Assurance Company as well as the respondents-
claimants.
6) The only contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant-Insurance Company, is that inasmuch as the
insurance policy was issued for \023paid driver\024 and not for
\023owner\024 who also happened to drive the vehicle himself at the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
time of the accident. In support of his contention, learned
counsel drew our attention to the Insurance Policy(Annexure
P-3). Perusal of the Schedule of Premium mentioned in the
Insurance Policy, shows that apart from liability to public
risk, the owner has paid premium only for \023paid driver and/or
conductor\024. By contending that in the case on hand, the
deceased being the owner-cum-driver and without additional
premium/coverage for owner-cum-driver, the insurance
company is not liable to pay any compensation for death of the
deceased who was owner-cum-driver and not paid driver as
mentioned in the Schedule of Premium. In support of his
contention, learned counsel for the appellant heavily relied on
Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which speaks
about the statutory liabilities and a decision of this Court in
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Meera Bai & Ors., (2006)
9 SCC 174.
7) We have carefully considered the above provision as well
the decision of this Court. Taking note of the peculiar fact
that the claimants have lost their only breadwinner, we are not
inclined to interfere with the concurrent orders of the Tribunal
as well as the High Court. Consequently, the appeal fails and
the same is dismissed.