Udanlal vs United India Insurance Company Ltd.

S.R. Waghmare, J.—By this appeal u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988 challenge is to the order of dismissal passed by the Additional Motor Accident Tribunal, Kukshi District Dhar in Claim Case No. 136/2003. Brief facts of the case are that the application was filed u/s 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act by the claimant. The claimant claimed compensation for the injuries received by the claimant in the accident which took place on 10.08.2001. On the fateful day, the appellant was driving his own motorcycle bearing Registration No. MP-11R/4074 from Kukshi towards his home, when to avoid colliding with a bicycle, he lost control over his motorcycle and fell down, as a result, he received injuries on the face, head and other parts of the body. He filed a claim before the Tribunal for compensation to be received from the non-applicant/Insurance Company, which was dismissed the claim and hence the present appeal.

Considering the fact that the accident has not been disputed before me only question arises in the appeal is whether the Insurance Company is liable to pay the claim as put forth by the claimant.

Counsel for the appellant has vehemently urged the fact that according to Ex. A/91 the additional premium paid regarding the risk was covered by the policy of insurance and the claim had been filed u/s 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act and nothing further was required to be proved under the circumstances. Despite which, the Tribunal had erred in dismissing the claim of the appellant.

Counsel for the respondent/Insurance Company, however has taken this Court through Annexure A/1 and pointed out that there was no additional premium paid against the Personal Accident Coverage by the insured with regard to I.M.T. No. 64. He has vehemently urged on the basis of record that no illegality as such was committed by the Tribunal while dismissing the claim of the appellant. He has placed reliance in the matter of Dhanraj V. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and another 2005 ACJ 1 SCC, whereby the Apex Court held that when the policy does not cover any risk for injury to the owner himself and in such circumstances the insurance company can not be held liable for injuries sustained by the owner-insured when the vehicle met with accident and especially when there was no premium paid for own damage but is paid towards damage to vehicle and not for injury to the owner-insured as the owner-insured has no liability to a third party, the insurance company has no liability also. Counsel prayed for dismissal of the appeal. On considering the above submissions, impugned judgment and the record and also Annexure A/1, I find that additional premium has not been paid to cover the risk of the owner of the vehicle and Section 147 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988 does not require an insurance company to assume risk for death or bodily injury to the owner of the vehicle. The liability of an insurance company is only for the purpose of indemnifying the insured against liabilities incurred towards third person or in respect of damages to property. Thus, where the insured, i.e. an owner of the vehicle has no liability to a third party the insurance company has no liability also. An owner of a vehicle can only claim compensation provided personal accident insurance has been taken. In this case, there is no such insurance. I also place reliance in the matter of Dhanraj (supra) and find that no case is made out for interference in the order passed by the M.A.C.T., it is based on proper appreciation of evidence.

In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed as being without merit.