NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. vs Bolem Rama Devi And Ors.

THE facts of the case in brief are that the deceased Bolem Venkata Naganjaneyulu was the owner -cum -driver of the lorry bearing No. AP 15U 1139 which was insured with the New India Assurance Company Ltd. covering all risks including third party risk. The driver was earning Rs. 4,000 p.m. On 4.12.2001, during the currency of the insurance policy, the vehicle met with an accident and the owner -cum -driver and cleaner of the vehicle died on the spot. Inquest and post -mortem were also conducted. The complainants who are LRs of the deceased made a claim which was not paid by the Insurance Company.

ACCORDINGL Y , a complaint was filed before the District Forum with the prayer to direct the Insurance Company to pay compensation of Rs. 4 lakh together with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of accident i.e., 4.12.2001 till the date of realization along with Rs. 5,000 towards costs. In the District Forum the Insurance Company contended that as per terms and conditions of the policy, the Insurance Company indemnifies the owner of the vehicle only against his liability to third parties, and the owner can claim only reimbursement of damage caused to the vehicle and not to pay compensation for injury or death of the insured/owner of the vehicle who died while driving the vehicle due to accident. Learned Counsel for the complainants relied upon the decision of A.P. State Commission which held that jurisdiction of the Tribunal under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 are not ousted by the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and did not take into consideration judgments quoted by the learned Counsel for the opposite parties. The District Forum held that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in not settling the claim of the insured and, therefore, the Insurance Company was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2 lakh with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of complaint, i.e., 23.9.2002 till the date of realization and to pay Rs. 1,000 as costs.

AGGRIEVED by the order of the District Forum, the Insurance Company filed appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission held as follows: "By no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the jurisdiction of this Tribunal is ousted by the Motor Vehicles Act. Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 clearly states that this Act is in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law. The Act supplements and does not supplant the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts or other statutory authorities (2003) CTJ 85 SC."

In the result, the State Commission dismissed the appeal.

DISSATISFI ED by the Order of the State Commission, the Insurance Company has filed this revision petition before us. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the District Forum acted with material irregularity in not appreciating that in view of the mandatory provisions of Section 165 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988). Only the Motor Accident Claims Tribunals for such area as may be specified in the Notification have the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving the death of or bodily injury to, person arising out of the use of motor vehicle or damages to any property of a third party so arising, or both. In this view of the matter, no Court or any other Tribunal including the Consumer Fora except Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, have the jurisdiction to entertain any complaint seeking compensation in respect of accidents involving the death of, or bodily injury to, persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles.

HE also relied heavily upon the judgment of the Apex Court in The Chairman, Thiruvalluvar Transport Corporation v. The Consumer Protection Council reported as I (1995) CPJ 3 (SC)=(1995) 1 CPR 371.

RELEVANT extract of this judgment reads as under: "The short question which arises for consideration in the present appeal is whether the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter called "the National Commission") constituted under Section 20 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short ''the 1986 Act'') had jurisdiction to adjudicate upon a claim for compensation arising out of a motor vehicle accident, notwithstanding the jurisdiction conferred on a Claims Tribunal constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the 1988 Act'').......... ..........Clearly the Claims Tribunal constituted for a area in question, had jurisdiction to entertain any claim for compensation arising out of the fatal accident since such a claim application would clearly fall within the ambit of Section 165 of the 1988 Act. The 1988 Act can be said to be a special Act in relation to claims of compensation arising out of the use of a motor vehicle. The 1986 Act being a law dealing with the question of extending protection to consumers in general, could, therefore, be said to be a general law in relation to the specific provisions concerning accidents arising out of the use of motor vehicles found in Chapter XII of the 1988 Act. Ordinarily the general law must yield to the special law. Besides, the complaint in question cannot be said to be in relation to any goods sold or delivered or agreed to be sold or delivered or any service provided or agreed to be provided to the deceased..........."

Relevant portion of section on Claims Tribunal in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 reads as follows: "165. Claims Tribunals. (1) -A State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute one or more Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereafter in this Chapter referred to as Claims Tribunal) for such area as may be specified in the notification for the purpose of adjudicating upon claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving the death of, or bodily injury to, persons arising out of the use of motor vehicle, or damages to any property of a third party so arising, or both. Explanation. - For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the expression claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving the death of or bodily injury to persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles includes claims for compensation under Section 140 [and Section 163A]."

IN view of the judgment of the Apex Court for seeking compensation for death and injury, the claimants have to approach Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in their State. Therefore, award of compensation to the tune of Rs. 2 lakh with interest, etc. by the Fora below is not justified. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. R.P. allowed.