In FAO-1955-2022(O&M)-PUNJ HC- In case of comprehensive policy, Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation even if deceased is considered to be owner of vehicle, rules P&H HC while considering Company’s appeal against MACT award involving woman's death in car accident resulting from her husband’s negligent driving 
Justice Harkesh Manuja [09-01-2023]

Read Order: Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Manish Kumar and Others

Monika Rahar

Chandigarh, January 10, 2023: While dealing with an appeal by an insurance company challenging the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal involving the death of a woman who died in a car accident resulting from negligent driving of her husband, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana has held that it is an admitted fact that the policy taken for the vehicle was a comprehensive policy and therefore, Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation even if deceased is considered 

to be the owner of the vehicle.

In this petition before the Bench of Justice Harkesh Manuja, the appellant- Insurance Company pleaded that the deceased, being the wife of a tortfeasor, could not be considered a third party and Insurance Company cannot be called upon to indemnify the insured-husband who himself was negligent in causing the accident.

The present appeal challenged the award of the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Amritsar (Tribunal) whereby a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- was awarded as compensation in favour of all the claimants with a further direction that in case the compensation is not deposited within two months, the same shall accrue an interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing  of petition till actual realisation.

In this case, the deceased was travelling in a car with her husband (fifth respondent) and children. Owing to the car being driven at a high speed by the fifth respondent, the car collided with a tree leading to the death of the deceased-wife. 

In this regard, an FIR was registered under Sections 304-A, 279, 337 and 338 of the IPC. 

In the claim petition filed by the claimants (first five respondents), the Tribunal  granted compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-, while holding that since the claim petition was filed under Section 163-A, it was immaterial whether there was any negligence on part of the driver (fifth Respondent). 

The present appeal was filed by the Insurance Company for setting aside the award passed by the Tribunal, on the issue of liability.

Plea raised by the appellant-Insurance Company was that the deceased, being the wife of a tortfeasor, could not be considered a third party and the Insurance Company could not be called upon to indemnify the insured-husband who himself was negligent in causing the accident.

After hearing the parties, the Court made reference to the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Balakrishnan & Another, wherein it authoritatively settled that in case of injury or death of owner/driver/occupant of the car or motorbike, Insurance Company is liable if policy of the vehicle is a ‘compressive/ package policy’ but Insurance Company is not liable if it is only an ‘act policy’.

Apart from that, reliance was placed on the judgement of a co-ordinate Bench of the High Court in Manpreet Kaur v. Sukhdev  Singh and another, 2021 (4) R.C.R. (Civil) 71, where, in view of distinct, separate and independent legal status of the claimant/mother, her claim was allowed when the owner/driver of the offending vehicle was father himself. Therefore, it was held that the argument that the owner himself being a tortfeasor does not hold substance as claim petition was filed by the legal heirs of the deceased/mother to the exclusion of their father, who being a separate legal entity from the father, the claimants being children are fully vested with lawful rights to claim compensation on account of death of their  mother. 

In view of the aforementioned legal position, the Court held that the present case boiled down to the point as to whether the policy of the vehicle was “an act policy” or “a comprehensive policy”.

The Court held that the policy taken for the vehicle was a comprehensive policy and therefore, Insurance Company was liable to pay the compensation even if the deceased was considered to be the owner of the vehicle.

Resultantly, the present appeal was dismissed in-limine with no orders as to costs.