🖨️ Print / Download PDF

IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited Vs Heeraman And Ors

Case No: Miscellaneous Appeal (C) No. 784 Of 2012

Date of Decision: Feb. 13, 2018

Acts Referred: Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 163A, 173

Hon'ble Judges: P. Sam Koshy, J

Bench: Single Bench

Advocate: Amrito Das, Amiyakant Tiwari

Final Decision: Allowed

Translate: English | हिन्दी | தமிழ் | తెలుగు | ಕನ್ನಡ | मराठी

Judgement

P. Sam Koshy, J

1. Present is an appeal filed by the Insurance Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act assailing the award dated 04/04/2012 passed by

the learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (C.G.) in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 102/2010.

2. Vide the impugned award, the Tribunal in a death case under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act has awarded a compensation of

Rs.2,00,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of application.

3. The ground of challenge by the Insurance Company is that, the deceased in the instant case was himself driving the vehicle at the time of accident

and therefore the claim application would not be maintainable since, he had himself borrowed the vehicle from the owner i.e. respondent No.5. He

further submits that, even if it is presumed that the deceased would step into the shoes of the owner even then, the claim application would not be

maintainable under Section 163-A. The only remedy available to the claimant was of preferring an appropriate claim application under the provision of

Consumer Protection Act.

4. This Court does not find any sufficient force in the said argument raised by the counsel for the appellant for the simple reason that, perusal of policy

would show that, the Insurance Company had charged an extra premium covering the risk of the owner-cum-driver of the Motorcycle. The claimant

since he steps into the shoes of the owner and by virtue of the policy covering the risk of the owner also has a right of availing the remedy under the

provision of Motor Vehicles Act for the death of the deceased which arose from the use of the Motorcycle owned by the respondent No.5 and

insured by the present appellant.

5. Further from perusal of record it reflect that, the risk which was covered by the Insurance Company was to the extent of liability of Rs.1,00,000/-.

In the instant case, the total compensation awarded is that of Rs.2,00,000/-.

6. Considering the fact that, the risk covered by the Insurance Company was to the extent of Rs.1,00,000/-, this Court modifies the impugned award to

the extent that the present appellant shall be entitled for compensation of only an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- instead of Rs.2,00,000/- as awarded by the

Tribunal. Since the deceased has stepped into the shoes of the owner, the claimant would be entitled for only compensation to the extent of the risk

covered of Rs.1,00,000/- and not beyond that.

7. The appeal thus stands allowed in part and the impugned award stands modified to the extent that, the claimant shall be entitled for a total

compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest as awarded by the Tribunal.