Amarjit Kaur And ORS. v. Maghar Singh And ORS.
!"
#$%$!&'
( )*$ + ,)
&- ! . )% //////00 11 & % 2%/ 3.
) 4$&3.
&-
&! . ) ////// %0!&- & % '
56 4/ 4 4 4
!!"# $
% &'$ ( ) &&&& 4 4
/
6 * !+
, - !) !$ ..
/ ! 0 +1
(!)* +$!
1$ "
2* * +$!3# , !) ! + !!4 !)
) ,) 4
4 *+
) !) 000 566" #, !! + % (8&0-09,
7 , 7* 7,+
) 6 ,!
,) +!: 7
!! !;! < !& 7 ! )
&
7
$!
!* 7 !! +
*) +!+
7 = +566 9 $ )$! ! $6$ > ?
!) ! , ! $)
4
) - @
) !
* +$!
)
!!
,$&
(1) Whether the petitioners are the legal representatives of deceased Gajjan Singh ?OPA
(2) Whether Gajjan Singh died in the accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of Maghar Singh respondent while driving truck No. PCE(9497 ? OPA
(3) Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation. If so how much and from which of the respondents? OPA.
(4) Whether the driver of the truck in question had no valid and effective driving license at the time of accident. If so its effect. OPR.
(5) Whether the owner of the truck had no valid documents of the truck at the time of the accident. If so its effect. OPR.
(6) Relief.
7
!
! * +$! ) !)& 9
!)4 !! ! !
)
4444 6
464 4 . *!
$!
!)& !!
!), !
) !) ,,
! )+! * +$!*
!
+!!
,
) + !!4 !) Per contra, !
$!
& '$ ( ) $ +
! )$) , !
$ $ ! "8A &# $ 7
& ,
*
)!
! ' !
$!
$, !
0 !
, + 1 * +$!
$ $ & "ISSUE NO. 3
8. Amarjit Kaur petitioner deposed that her husband owned three trucks including the truck in question No. PCE(9497. He was transporter and agriculturist. His income was Rs.15,000/( per month.
9 Ex. R1 is copy of the insurance policy which shows that Rs. 2779/( were paid as basic premium. Rs. 45/( were paid for premium for the employees. Rs. 75/( were paid as premium for third party property damage. The owner's risk is not covered under the death of the owner of the truck No. PCE(9497. Now the question arises whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation on account of the death of Gajjan Singh, who was owner of this truck and who was traveling in the truck, when the
accident took place. The insurance policy shows that no separate premium was paid for the purpose of covering the risk of owner himself. Hence, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. The case of
is referred here. There was a collision between a scooter and cycle due to negligence of the cyclist resulting in death of the scooterist, who was the owner and insured. There was no evidence to show that any separate premium was paid for the purpose of covering risk of the owner himself. The question arose whether the Insurance Company is liable. It was held that Insurance Company was not liable. The Insurance Company insures the liability of the insured and does not insure the insured. So the petitioners are not entitled to claim ) compensation from respondent No. 3 Insurance Company.
10. So far as Maghar Singh respondent No. 1 is concerned, he was employee of the deceased. For his wrongful driving which resulted into the death of Gajjan Singh owner of the truck, compensation cannot be claimed from Maghar Singh driver. This issue is decided against the petitioners."
$!
) $ , ! !!4 !)&)) 6;$ $+&566 " #,
7 !$
! + % (8&0-0 @$ '$
! "8A &# !
)$)
04&, + )$) !! - 4&, ,
) !
4&
&
)9 , )$),
! 7
& *! * +$! ! + , !!
!)
, )!
!*
,
$ + !)
& ! *$ !) !! 7 )!
, )$), * !, ! ' ! "# $
% & ' ()
*++ ,(, 9 3+!$ )(
!!!
!
$ ! $! !
!!7 )$)
)*$ !
& 7 $ ) !! A $ $!$ 7 !!$ * ! A
)
$ $ & "We have seen the Policy. It is a comprehensive policy. The question that arises is whether a comprehensive Policy would cover the risk of injury to the owner of the vehicle also. Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 reads as follows:( "147. Requirements of policies and limits of liability.(1) In order to comply with the requirements of this Chapter, a policy of insurance must be a policy which (a) is issued by a person who is an authorized insurer; or (b) insurer the person or classes of persons specified in the policy to the extent specified in sub(section (2) (i) against any liability which may be incurred by him in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any person, including owner of the goods or his authorized representative carried in the vehicle or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place;
(ii) against the death of or bodily injury to any passenger of a public service vehicle caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place:
Provided that a policy shall not be required (i) to cover liability in respect of the death, arising out of and in the course of his employment, of the employee of a person insured by the policy or in respect of bodily injury sustained by such an employee arising out of and in the course of his employment other than a liability arising under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923) in respect of the death of or bodily injury to, any such employee (a) engaged in driving the vehicle, or (b) if it is a public service vehicle engaged as conductor of the vehicle or in examining tickets on the vehicle, or (c) if it is a goods carriage, being carried in the vehicle, or (ii) to cover any contractual liability.
Explanation.For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the death of or bodily injury to any person or damage to any property of a third party shall be deemed to have been caused by or to have arisen out of, the use of a vehicle in a public place notwithstanding that the person who is dead or injured or the property which is damaged was not in a public place at the time of the accident, if the act or omission which led to the accident occurred in a public place.
(2) Subject to the proviso to sub(section (1), a policy of insurance referred to in sub(section (1), shall cover any liability incurred in respect of any accident, up to the following limits, namely:(( (a) save as provided in clause (b), the amount of liability incurred; (b) in respect of damage to any property of a third party, a limit of rupees six thousand:
Provided that any policy of insurance issued with any limited liability and in force, immediately before the commencement of this Act, shall continue to be effective for a period of four months after such commencement or till the date of expiry of such policy whichever is earlier."
Thus, 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 caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle. Section 147 does not require an Insurance Company to assume risk for death or bodily injury to the owner of the vehicle.
In the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sunita Rathi & Ors. [1998 ACJ 121] it has been held that the liability of an Insurance Company is only for the purpose of indemnifying the insured against liabilities incurred towards third person or in respect of damages to property. Thus, where the insured i.e. an owner of the vehicle has no liability to a third party the Insurance Company has no liability also.
In this case, it has not been shown that the policy covered any risk for injury to the owner himself. We are unable to accept the contention that the premium of Rs.4,989/( paid under the heading "Own damage" is for covering liability towards personal injury. Under the heading "Own damage", the words "premium on vehicle and non(electrical accessories" appear. It is thus clear that this premium is towards damage to the vehicle and not for injury to the person of the owner. An owner of a vehicle can only claim provided a personal accident insurance has been taken out. In this case, there is no such insurance.
We, therefore, see no infirmity in the Judgment of the High Court. We see no reason to interfere. The Appeals stand dismissed. > ',
+ !! $! !
!!!
)
+! * +$!*
!$ , $
+
,! !
!, -
! ( !! )) $ , - ) +$ !( B$!
! %% +
) *'$ ( ) + +$
$! $
,
)
,
- @C% .
+( .
! "# !
4 4
: 74 D4%
:
+! D4%