First Appeal No.12 of 2012

22nd January, 2014

Petitioner Counsel: Mr. DHANANJAY P. DESHPANDE

Cases Cited:
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rajni Devi & Ors., 2008 ALL SCR 1806=(2008) 5 SCC 736 [Para 6]
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Jhuma Saha & Ors., 2007 ALL SCR 906=AIR 2007 SC 1054 [Para 6]
Dhanraj Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2004(5) ALL MR 1195 (S.C.)=(2004) 8 SCC 553 [Para 6]
Deepal Girishbhai Soni Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2004(5) ALL MR 674 (S.C.)=2004 (5) SCC 385 [Para 7]

JUDGMENT

JUDGMENT :- Heard Mr. Deshpande for the appellant.

2. Notices were issued on 12th Jan., 2012, informing that the appeal could be decided finally at the stage of admission. There was no response to the notices. Consequently, Civil Application was moved for paper publication which was allowed on 26.2.2012. Inspite of such publication of notice, no participation from respondents.

3. Heard. Considering issue involved and since record is available, the appeal is heard finally in absence of respondents (original claimants).

4. The appellant Insurance Company questions award dated 18.10.2011 recorded by the learned Ad hoc District Judge and Ex Officio Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nanded, in MACP No. 523/2001 thereby awarding an amount of Rs. 2,65,000/- with interest at the rate of 6.5 per cent per annum from the date of registration of the application till payment.

5. Deceased Dhirendra was proceeding towards Kalambar (Bk.) on his motor cycle on 30th March, 2001. However, in order to avoid offending obstacle, he took his motor cycle to extreme side of the road and, resultantly fell, suffered grievous hurt and, subsequently, succumbed. His legal representatives have preferred application under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act for grant of compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rs. five lacs).

6. From the available record, it is not in question about death of the deceased, the spot panchnama at Exh.27, the inquest at Exh.28, the insurance policy at Exh.32. The learned Judge considered income of the deceased, dependency and directed afore referred compensation. The grievance of the appellant insurance Company is:

(a) Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act cannot be allowed to be put in acceleration by legal representatives of owner of vehicle when owner was involved in the accident.

(b) The insurance policy was applicable to third party and not to the owner of the vehicle.

Without further pondering upon the facts and adverting to its discussion, it is necessary to refer to the legal position to which Mr. Deshpande gave reference which is crystallized by the Apex Court in the matter of Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd V. Rajni Devi and others ( (2008) 5 SSC 736 : [2008 ALL SCR 1806]). In the said case, the Apex Court has dealt with effect and impetus of Section 163-A, which are special provisions, as to payment of compensation on structured formula basis and the regular objections under Section 166 M.V.Act. The Apex Court also referred to earlier judgments reported in AIR 2007 SC 1054 : [2007 ALL SCR 906] (Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. vs. Smt. Jhuma Saha and others) and (2004) 8 SCC 553 : [2004(5) ALL MR 1195 (S.C.)] (Dhanraj V. New India Assurance Co.Ltd. The sum and substance of all these three judgments is, an insurance policy covers the liability incurred by the insured in respect of death of or bodily injury to any person (including an owner of the goods or his authorized representative) carried in the vehicle or damage to any property of a third party carried in the vehicle. However, effect of Section 147 of Motor Vehicles Act does not provide a leverage of insurance to owner of the vehicle in case of his death or bodily injury.

7. The deceased was, allegedly, drawing salary of Rs.18,000/- a month while serving in Zilla Parishad as a Medical Officer. The learned Judge has reduced the annual income to the ceiling of Rs.40,000/- to bring the case in terms of Section 163-A which is not permissible under the Scheme. It is well recognized, the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation and deserves liberal construction with a view to implement the legislative intent. However, it should not be twisted in such a manner to squeeze the provisions. The Scheme under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act has special effect and requires to consider the legislative intention.

In the light of this position, the proceedings under Section 163-A being a social security provision, providing for distinct scheme, only those whose annual income is upto a ceiling of Rs. 40,000/- would be permissible to take benefit thereof. However, other claims will have to be dealt with in terms of Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act. (2004 (5) SCC 385 : [2004(5) ALL MR 674 (S.C.)] - Deepal Girishbhai Soni vs. United India Insurance Co.Ltd.).

8. Conspectus of above facts illustrate, the learned Member, Inspite of having pointed the legal position, did not consider the same and, hence, the order impugned calls for interference. It is accordingly set aside. The statutory amount and the compensation deposited by the Insurance Company in this Court be reimbursed with accrued interest to it after 12th March, 2014.

Appeal allowed, no costs.

Appeal allowed.