- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., Hyderabad v. Mohd. Saleem And Another
Structured Summary of the Opinion
Factual and Procedural Background
This appeal is filed by the appellant, Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, against the order dated 2.12.2008 passed in OP No. 1173 of 2007 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (XVI Additional Chief Judge-cum-II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge), Hyderabad.
The respondent/claimant is Mr. Mohd. Saleem who filed a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking Rs. 3,00,000 as compensation for injuries sustained in a motor accident on 23.11.2006 at about 11:30 p.m. on the outskirts of Pulluru Village (Police Station Manopad, Mahboobnagar District). The claimant's case was that he was proceeding on an Eicher van (No. AP-28-X-2517) as owner of the goods; the vehicle allegedly dashed into a stationed tractor-trailer, causing grievous injuries to the claimant who was treated at Government Hospital Kurnool and Area Hospital Golconda.
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded Rs. 1,44,200/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization. The Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Eicher van. The Tribunal additionally found, on evidence, that the claimant was not travelling as an owner of the goods but was permitted to travel in a goods-carrying vehicle (which was a breach of the policy terms). The Tribunal directed the insurance company to pay the compensation in the first instance and thereafter recover the amount from the vehicle owner. The insurance company appealed against that direction.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Tribunal was correct in directing the insurance company to pay the compensation in the first instance and thereafter recover the same from the owner of the vehicle.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant — Reliance General Insurance Company Limited (Insurance Company)
- The insurance company challenged the Tribunal's direction to pay compensation in the first instance and then recover from the owner on the ground that the claimant was a gratuitous passenger (not travelling as owner of the goods) and therefore the insurer is not liable to pay.
- Reliance placed reliance on Supreme Court decisions (New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Vedwati, 2007 ACJ 1043, and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Prema Devi, 2008 ACJ 1149) which, according to the insurer, hold that where a claimant is a gratuitous passenger in a goods vehicle the insurer is not liable to pay compensation; therefore, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act to direct payment by the insurer in the first instance.
Respondent — Mr. Mohd. Saleem (Claimant)
- The claimant alleged he was travelling in the Eicher van as owner of the goods and sought Rs. 3 lakhs as compensation for permanent disability from injuries sustained in the accident.
- The Tribunal, however, disbelieved the claimant's claim that he was travelling as an owner of goods and accepted evidence (including Exs. A1 and A2 and PW1 cross-examination) indicating he was working on the vehicle for the owner and permitted to travel in a goods vehicle.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| National Assurance Company Limited v. Kamala, 2001 ACJ 843 | The insurer made statutorily liable to pay compensation to third parties by virtue of certificate of insurance; insurer can recover from insured if there was breach of policy terms, but must first pay the claimant. | The court relied on this authority to support the proposition that the insurer should pay the award in the first instance and thereafter recover from the insured where policy conditions were breached. |
| New India Assurance Company Limited v. Vedwati, 2007 ACJ 1043 | Held that the owner of a goods vehicle has no statutory responsibility to insure for passengers travelling in a goods vehicle and the insurer is not liable to pay compensation to such claimants (gratuitous passengers). | The insurance company relied on this case to contend it was not liable. The court noted that Vedwati addressed insurer's liability but did not decide whether the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction under Section 168 to direct the insurer to pay in the first instance. |
| National Insurance Company Limited v. Prema Devi, 2008 ACJ 1149 | Held that a claimant travelling in a goods vehicle not as owner of goods (or representative) is a gratuitous passenger; the insurer can avoid liability because there is no statutory requirement to obtain a policy covering such passengers. | The insurer relied on this case to argue non-liability. The court observed that Prema Devi addressed insurer liability but did not consider the tribunal's power to order payment by the insurer in the first instance under Section 168. |
| National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Baljith Kaur, 2004 (1) ALD 98 (SC) : (2004) 2 SCC 1 | The Supreme Court held that issuing a direction to the insurer to satisfy an award in the first instance (and then recover from the insured) sub-serves the interest of justice; the Tribunal is entitled to determine amounts and resolve disputes between insurer and owner/driver under Section 168. | The court treated Baljith Kaur as laying down the legal principle permitting Tribunals to direct insurers to satisfy awards first; the present Tribunal's direction was held to be in accordance with Baljith Kaur. |
| Kusum Lata v. Satbir, AIR 2011 SC 1234 | Held that the Tribunal has inherent power to issue directions of the kind requiring an insurer to satisfy awards in the first instance. | The court cited this decision as further authority supporting the Tribunal's power to direct the insurer to pay first and then seek recovery from the insured. |
| Division Bench judgment in MACMA Nos. 2535 of 2006 and 1661 of 2006 (This Court) | Applied the ratio in Baljith Kaur to hold that insurers can be directed to satisfy awards initially and recover later from the owner where appropriate. | The court noted that a Division Bench of this Court (of which the present judge was a member) applied Baljith Kaur and reached the same conclusion; this supported the present decision to uphold the Tribunal's direction. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court structured its reasoning around two distinct questions:
- Fact and quantum: The court accepted the Tribunal's factual findings that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the Eicher van driver and that the claimant was not travelling as owner of the goods but was permitted to travel in a goods vehicle. The quantum of compensation (Rs. 1,44,200/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a.) was held to have been properly computed and was not contested in the appeal.
- Legal question on the Tribunal's power to direct the insurer to pay first: The court distinguished between (a) the insurer's substantive liability to pay compensation (which may be negated or avoided on grounds such as breach of policy or that the injured person was a gratuitous passenger), and (b) the Tribunal's jurisdiction and power under the Motor Vehicles Act to direct an insurer to satisfy an award in the first instance and then recover from the insured.
The court observed that the Supreme Court decisions relied upon by the insurer (Vedwati; Prema Devi) addressed whether the insurer was substantively liable to pay where passengers were gratuitous, but did not decide whether a Tribunal lacked jurisdiction under Section 168 to order the insurer to pay in the first instance and then seek recovery. By contrast, the court found that National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Baljith Kaur (and subsequent authorities such as Kusum Lata v. Satbir) recognized and upheld the Tribunal's power to issue such directions, holding that doing so sub-serves the interest of justice and falls within the scope and purport of Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
The court further explained the statutory scheme: after notice to the insurer when an award is passed (Sections 147 and 149), the insurer becomes a judgment debtor obligated to satisfy the award despite any defenses it may have to substantive liability (subject to the existence of valid third-party insurance). The court emphasised a distinction between the defences available to an insurer under Section 149 and the insurer's obligation to satisfy decrees and awards in favour of victims/third parties once notice and award procedures have been followed.
On this basis, and relying on Baljith Kaur and decisions of coordinate benches applying it, the court concluded that the Tribunal was correct in directing the insurer to satisfy the award initially and thereafter recover from the owner of the vehicle.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The appeal by the insurance company fails and is DISMISSED; the Tribunal's direction that the insurance company satisfy the award in the first instance and thereafter recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle is upheld. The appeal is dismissed without any order as to costs.
Implications:
- Direct effect on the parties: The insurance company is required to pay the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal to the claimant (Rs. 1,44,200/- with interest as ordered). The insurer retains a right of recovery against the insured (vehicle owner) for any sums paid where policy conditions were breached.
- Legal position affirmed: The decision expressly follows and applies the legal position set out in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Baljith Kaur and related Supreme Court authorities that Tribunals have power under the Motor Vehicles Act (notably Section 168 and read with Sections 147/149) to direct an insurer to satisfy awards in the first instance and subsequently seek recovery from the insured. The opinion does not purport to set out a new precedent beyond applying existing authorities.
1. This appeal is filed by the appellant-Reliance General Insurance Company Limited against the order dated 2.12.2008 passed in OP No. 1173 of 2007 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XVI Additional Chief Judge-cum-II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.
2. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent/claimant. Mr. Mohd. Saleem, the claimant filed a claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation of Rs. 3 lakhs on account of the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident occurred on 23.112006 at about 11.30 p.m, on the outskirts of Pulluru Village within the territorial jurisdiction of Police Station, Manopad, Mahboobnagar District.
3. The claimant's version before the Tribunal is that he was proceeding on the Eicher Van bearing No. AP-28-X-2517, the offending vehicle as owner of the goods from Hyderabad to Kurnool, when the vehicle reached outskirts of Pulluru Village, it met with an accident as the driver of the said vehicle drove it in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the stationed tractor-trailor, he received grievous injuries, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Kurnool and from there to Area Hospital, Golconda. Stating that he sustained permanent disability, he sought compensation of Rs. 3 lakhs against which the leaned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 1,44,200/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.
4. Since the compensation has been properly computed and the main contention of the insurance company being as to its liability to pay compensation to the claimant, the quantum of compensation does not require any reconsideration in the present appeal and the Tribunal has also on evidence rightly held that the accident was on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said Eicher van and the finding having attained finality also need not be re-examined.
5. The only question requires determination in the present appeal is whether the Tribunal is right in issuing a direction to the insurance company to pay the compensation in the first instance and then recover the same from the owner of the vehicle.
6. The contention of the claimant that he was travelling in the said van along with load of his vegetables was repelled by the Tribunal below on the ground that in the cross-examination the claimant as PW1 stated that he was working on the offending vehicle under the first respondent and that his work was to proceed with the Eicher Van belonging to the first respondent-owner and also that the said vehicle is a goods carrying vehicle. The Tribunal also further took into consideration Exs.A1 and A2 the documents relied upon by the claimant which do not disclose that he was travelling in the vehicle as owner of the goods. Therefore, the Tribunal below rightly recorded a finding basing on the evidence before it that the claimant was not travelling in the vehicle as owner of the goods and as he was allowed to travel in the goods vehicle, there was violation of terms and conditions of the policy. The Tribunal relying on the judgment in National Assurance Company Limited v. Kamala, 2001 ACJ 843, held that the insurer who is made statutorily liable to pay compensation to third parties, on account of certificate of insurance issued, shall be entitled to recover from the insured the amount paid to third party, if there was any breach of conditions of the policy, but, in the first instance it has to pay the compensation to the claimant the said finding has been challenged in the present appeal. Reliance is placed by the learned Counsel appearing for the insurance companion on New India Assurance Company Limited v. Vedwati, 2007 ACJ 1043, wherein the Supreme Court held that the owner of the goods vehicle has no statutory responsibility to get his vehicle insured for covering any passenger travelling in the goods vehicle and the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation to the claimants. In National Insurance Company Limited v. Prema Devi, 2008 ACJ 1149, the Supreme Court held that when the claimant was travelling in a goods vehicle not as owner of the goods or as representative of the owner of the goods is a gratuitous passenger and the insurance company can avoid its liability on the ground that the owner of the vehicle had not taken policy for such passenger and there was no requirement under law for obtaining a policy covering such passengers.
7. Basing on the judgments above referred, the learned Counsel appearing for the insurance company contends that in the said cases the Supreme Court held that in the case of gratuitous passengers, the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation and when once it is not liable to pay compensation, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act to issue a direction to the insurance company to pay the amount in the first instance and then it can recover the same from the owner of the vehicle.
8. As to this, I would like to state that whether the insurance company can be exonerated from liability to pay compensation on account of breach of terms and conditions committed by the insured is a different question from the one, whether the Tribunal is empowered to issue a direction under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act to pay compensation to the claimant, as a gratuitous passenger under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act in the judgments relied on by the learned Counsel appearing for the insurance company the Supreme Court does not dealt with the question whether the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to issue such direction. The Supreme Court only dealt with the issue as to whether the insurance company in the given circumstances was liable to pay compensation to the claimants.
9. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Baljith Kaur, 2004 (1) ALD 98 (SC) : (2004) 2 SCC 1, the Supreme Court did not lay down that the power to issue direction to the insurance company to satisfy the award in the first instance and then recover the same from the insurer was only with the Apex Court under Article 136 or 141 of the Constitution of India. In the said case, the Supreme Court laid down the law in general terms and held that by issuing such direction interest of justice will be sub-served and also emphasized that it has issued the aforesaid direction having regard to the scope and purport of Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and has laid down the legal position in categorical and clear terms that the Tribunal is not only entitled to determine the amount of compensation claimed as put-forth by the claimant for recovery thereof from the insurer, owner or driver of the vehicle jointly and severally but also the dispute between the insurer on the one hand and the owner or driver of the vehicle involved in the accident inasmuch as can be resolved by the Tribunal in such a proceeding. In Kusum Lata v. Satbir, AIR 2011 SC 1234, the Supreme Court held that that the Tribunal has inherent power to issue such direction. Therefore, the argument advanced by the learned Counsel appearing for the insurance company goes contra to the ratio laid down in Baljith Kaur's case (supra) and the same cannot be sustained. The Tribunal by virtue of its power and jurisdiction under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act can issue direction to the insurer to satisfy the award in the first instance in favour of the victims/third parties and then recover the amount so paid from the insured. In National Assurance Company Limited v. Kamala (supra), the Supreme Court held that the insurance company is liable to pay compensation to third parties, irrespective of the fact that there was any breach or violation of any policy conditions, but the insurance company can recover the amount from the insured the amount paid to third party, if there was any breach of conditions of the policy, but, in the first instance it has to pay the compensation to the claimant.
10. The scheme of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as can be seen from the provisions of Sections 147 and 149 is that after notice to the insurer when the award has been passed, the position of the insurer is that of a judgment debtor and it has legal obligation to satisfy the award, despite the fact that it is entitled to avoid liability on the ground of breach of terms and conditions of the contract or the statutory provisions so long as there is a valid third party insurance. A distinction has to be drawn between the defences which the insurance company can take under Section 149 of the Motor vehicles Act and its obligation to satisfy the decrees and awards insofar as victims/third parties are concerned. In MACMA Nos. 2535 of 2006 and 1661 of 2006, a Division Bench of this Court to which I am a party rendered a judgment applying the ratio laid down in Baljith Kaur's case (supra), to the effect that even though the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation for violation of terms and conditions of the policy, it can be directed to satisfy the award in the first instance and then recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. In the instant case also, by allowing the claimant to travel in a goods vehicle, the insured committed breach of terms of the policy, on account of which the insurance company cannot be held liable to pay compensation to the claimants. But, at the same time, the Tribunal is right in issuing a direction to the insurance company to satisfy the award in the first instance and thereafter recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. The said direction issued by the Tribunal is in accordance with law lay down by the Supreme Court in Baljith Kaur's case (supra). The finding of thei Tribunal is therefore upheld by not accepting the contentions urged on behalf of the insurance company.
11. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the insurance company fails and the same is dismissed without any order as to costs.
Alert