motoraccidentcase
susanth nair s
(Querist) 10 September 2008
This query is : Resolved
which is the latest supremecourt ruling withregard to pillionrider's claim for compensation
Kiran Kumar
(Expert) 10 September 2008
pls mention the facts of the case to an extent that proper judgment could be looked into for ur purpose.
RAKHI BUDHIRAJA ADVOCATE
(Expert) 10 September 2008
Plz explain the facts of ur case so that proper judgement could be provided to u.
Srinivas.B.S.S.T
(Expert) 11 September 2008
Pillion rider's claim cannot be entertained by an insurance company if the policy is not covering the same.
Pillion rider not entitled to third-party insurance: SC
New Delhi: : A pillion rider who dies or gets injured in a road accident is not entitled to third party insurance claim, the Supreme Court has said. If a vehicle is covered only by a third party insurance, neither the owner, nor the passengers are covered, unless, the contract of insurance is specific that it would cover others too, a Bench of Justices S B Sinha and L S Panta said.
The Bench passed the ruling while quashing the Rs 1.18 lakh compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) in Kerala to the next of a woman pillion rider who died after falling from the scooter on which she was travelling.
The deceased Thankamani was pillion riding a scooter on October 20, 1993 when she accidentally fell down and died. Her family filed a claim for insurance compensation. But Oriental Insurance Company, the insurer, raised a contention that the policy did not cover the risk of injury or death for Thankamani as she was a gratuitous passenger. Hence, it was not liable to pay any compensation for her death.
However, the MACT rejected the insurance company’s claim and awarded the Rs 1.18 lakh compensation.
The Kerala High Court later upheld the MACT’s decision following which the insurer Oriental Insurance Company filed the appeal in the apex court. Upholding the insurance company’s plea, the apex court said that in terms of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicle Act, only in regard to reimbursement of the claim to a third party, a contract of insurance must be taken by the owners of the vehicle.
“The liability of the insurer to reimburse the owner in respect of a claim made by the third party, thus, is statutory whereas other claims are not,” the apex court observed. When, however, an owner of a vehicle intends to cover himself from other risks; it is permissible to enter into a contract of insurance in which event the insurer would be bound to reimburse the owner of the vehicle strictly in terms thereof, the Bench said.
The apex court said that the provisions of the MV Act and, in particular, Section 147 were enacted for the purpose of enforcing the principles of social justice.
“It, however, must be kept confined to a third party risk. A contract of insurance that is not statutory in nature should be construed like any other contract,” the Bench observed.
In the present case, the bench said, the parties had only entered into a contract of insurance for the purpose of covering the third party risk and not the risk of the owner or a pillion rider.
susanth nair s
(Querist) 11 September 2008
kindly provide the citation of the ruling mentioned in the answer
KamalNayanSaxena
(Expert) 12 September 2008
I do not agree with Mr. Sriniwas. Each case has its own merits. As far as pillion rider's claim is concerned, till now law is not settled.
J K Agrawal
(Expert) 12 September 2008
There are so many citations on this point
New India Insurance Co Ltd v Ranglal Pinju Nikam and Laxman Narayanan Khalane 2007 ACJ 1483 Bombay, 2007 (3) TAC 819 X
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. V Bhagya Laxmi and others 2007 ACJ 1676 Kant [Passenger in private vehicle not covered]
2006 (1) KCCR 290
2006 ACJ 1441
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Meena Vrial & Ors. [2007 (5) SCALE 269] [(2007) 5 SCC 428 [(pera 10)
Section 149(1), which casts an obligation on an insurer to
satisfy an award, also speaks only of award in respect of such
liability as is required to be covered by a policy under clause
(h) of sub-section (1) of Section 147, (being a liability covered
by the terms of the policy). This provision cannot therefore be
used to enlarge the liability if it does not exist in terms of
Section 147 of the Act'.]
Smt. Yallawwa & Ors. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. [2007 (8) SCALE 77], [:"The recent decisions of this Court are authorities for the proposition that the insurance company could not be liable in cases where passengers of a vehicle are not third parties."]
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Ved Wati [(2007) 9 SCC 486]
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd Versus Sudhakaran K.V. & Ors CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3634 OF 2008 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.19562/2006) 2008 MACD 190 SC [The law which emerges from the said decisions, is: (i) theliability of the insurance company in a case of this nature is not extended to a pillion rider of the motor vehicle unless the requisite amount of premium is paid for covering his/her risk (ii) the legal obligation arising under Section 147 of the Act cannot be extended to an injury or death of the owner of vehicle or the pillion rider; (iii) the pillion rider in a two-wheeler was not to be treated as a third party when the accident has taken place owing to rash and negligent riding of the scooter and not on the part of the driver of another vehicle.]
Mathew Joseph v Janki II 2007 Acc 140 FB Ker [Gratutious passenger in Transport vehicle includeds passenger on motor cycle. NFPP (Non Fare Paying Passenger) not covered if no specific risk cover is there.]
New India Insurance Co Ltd v Ranglal Pinju Nikam and Laxman Narayanan Khalane 2007 ACJ 1483 Bombay, 2007 (3) TAC 819 X
All the citations says that ACT ONLY Policy does not cover risk of pillion rider.
There are two types of policies ACT ONLY POLICY and PACKAGE POLICY. Act only policy covers risk required as per section 147 of M V Act only and not more. Package policy is governed by the terms and conditions of policy it self. The terms and conditions are prefixed by IRDA Please refer to IMT (India Motor Tarrif)
The wording used in package policy follows as under
'SECTION II - LIABILITY TO THIRD PARTIES
1. Subject to the limits of liability as laid down in the Schedule hereto the Company will indemnify the insured in the event of an accident caused by or arising out of the use of the insured vehicle against all sums which the insured shall become legally liable to pay in respect of
i) death of or bodily injury to any person including occupants carried in the insured vehicle ( provided such occupants are not carried for hire or reward) but except so far as it is necessary to meet the requirements of Motor Vehicles Act, the Company shall not be liable where such death or injury arises out of and in the course of the employment of such person by the insured,
ii) damage to property other than property belonging to the insured or held in trust or in the custody or control of the insured'
The simple and plain meaning of the wordings used is that each and every occupant is covered if (i) he is not carried for hire and reward and (ii) He is not employee (iii)but the emploueees stated in s 147 of MV ACT that is driver, conductor appointed to check tickets, person engaged for loading and unloading are covered.
SO NO SEPARATE PREMIUM IS REQUIRED FOR NFPP.
J K Agrawal
(Expert) 12 September 2008
Please suggest any comment on this point
susanth nair s
(Querist) 13 September 2008
thankyou for the valuable advice
