Gurpreet Singh and Others vs United India Insurance Company Limited and Others

S.S. Saron, J.—Heard counsel for the parties. The claimants/appellants filed a petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 ("Act" - for short) as amended, seeking compensation for the death of Kulwant Singh who died while driving scooter No. MHQ 5590 which was owned by Sh. Ram Pal Singh (respondent No. 2).

Kulwant Singh (deceased) on the date of accident i.e. on 18.8.1995 at about 3.00 p.m. was going on his scooter No. HNQ 5590 from village Karam to Pehowa. At that time, some vehicle, which could not be ascertained caused the accident with the scooter. Due to multiple injuries suffered by Kulwant Singh, he died at the PGI, Chandigarh on 20.8.1995. Kulwant Singh (deceased) was 40 years old and used to work at M/s. Guru Nanak Workshop, Pehowa. He was earning Rs. 2200/- per month. The claimants pleaded that they had spent Rs. 10,000/- on his treatment. They prayed for compensation in view of Section 163-A of the Act. The United India Insurance Company Limited, Kamal Road, Kaithal (respondent No. 1) with which the scooter was insured as third party inter alia pleaded that it was responsible only against third parry risks and Kulwant (deceased) did not come in the said category of insured. The owner of the scooter also took the same stand. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:--

"1. Whether deceased Kulwant Singh died in a vehicular accident, as alleged? OPP

If issue No. 1 is proved, then to what amount of compensation, the petitioners are entitled to receive and from whom? OPP

Relief."

The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra (''Tribunal - for short) after considering the provisions of Section 163-A of the Act held that the claimants/appellants were not entitled for any compensation.

Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that claimants/appellants are entitled for compensation as Kulwant Singh died in a motor vehicle accident. Therefore, they are entitled for compensation on account of his death.

Learned counsel for respondent No. 1-Insurance Company has submitted that the liability of the Insurance Company was only against third party risks and Kulwant Singh who died in the accident did not come in the said category as he Was himself driving the scooter stated to be owned by respondent No. 2 and it must have been driven with his consent and permission.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the matter. It may be noticed that Kulwant Singh is stated to have died when a truck hit his scooter. The scooter on which he was riding was insured with respondent No. 1-Insurance Company only against third party risks. Kulwant Singh (deceased) would not be covered by third party risks as he was himself driving the scooter in question which would be treated as his self-driven vehicle. It is not a case where any injury has been caused to a third party on account of the accident that took place or the scooter had hit some other person other than the rider. The liability of the Insurance Company in respect of third party insurance is only against injuries caused to persons other than the one riding the scooter. The vehicle with which the scooter was- hit has not been identified. There is no FIR or police proceedings with respect to the accident. No postmortem of Kulwant Singh has been placed on record to show that he died on account of injuries which he is stated to have Suffered in a motor vehicle accident. Therefore; the learned Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion that it could not be safely ascertained as to whether the deceased sustained injuries in an accident and later on died due to the said injuries. There is no infirmity in the order that has been passed by the learned Tribunal. In the circumstances, there is no merit in me appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.