AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sr.
No.",Point,Answer
1.,"Whether respondent no.03 Insurance Company was
jointly and severally liable to pay amount of
compensation to the claimants as the deceased was a
pillion rider and the risk was not covered.","Â In the
 affirmative.
Â
Â
Â
Â
2.,"Whether respondent no.03 Insurance Company
deserves to be absolved from its liability to pay the
compensation on the ground that the driver of the
offending vehicle had no valid and effective driving
license to drive the motorcycle on the date of the
accident.","Â In the negative.
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
note makes a specific mention about limitation as to use but there is no specific mention in the negative terms that the risk of the pillion rider is not,,
covered. The decision in the case of Babasaheb Anna Mali (supra) given by the Division Bench of this Court clarifies that a pillion rider cannot be,,
termed as third party. The deceased was travelling on the same vehicle and therefore, he cannot be a 'third party'. It is mandatory for the",,
Insurance Company to cover the risk of a third party when a customer approaches it for insurance of the vehicle. When a separate premium,,
regarding third party is not charged, we cannot say that the risk of pillion rider was covered under Exhibit 29. The ratio laid down in both the",,
decisions, above said, is applicable here. When the risk of a pillion rider is not covered under any insurance policy, then the Insurance Company",,
cannot be saddled with the amount of compensation. As aforesaid, both the authorities are in respect of payment of amount under no fault",,
liability. When even the amount under no fault liability cannot be saddled on the Insurance Company. The final amount also cannot be saddled on,,
the said statutory defence. Point no.01 is therefore, answered in the affirmative.",,
As regards point no.02, another specific defence was taken by the Insurance Company, that the respondent no.02 was not holding valid and",,
effective driving license on the date of the accident. However, no specific evidence on this point has been led by the Insurance Company. Perusal",,
of the FIR Exhibit 24 would also show that respondent no.02 was prosecuted for not holding license. The claimants have not produced copy of the,,
chargeÂsheet nor it was also produced by the Insurance Company. Therefore, when there was scope to bring the requisite evidence on record, the",,
Insurance Company failed to do so. Under such circumstance, the said point cannot be raised. Therefore, point no.02 is answered in the",,
negative.Â,,
One more ground has been raised, that the petition was not maintainable under Section 166 of the M.V. Act. Learned Advocate appearing for",,
the appellant has relied on the decision of Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Brahmi and others,,
[2017(2) T.A.C. 179 (H.P.)], wherein it has been held that when deceased himself was driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident and no",,
plea of rash and negligent driving was taken by the legal representatives of the deceased, which was sine qua non for maintaining the claim, the claim",,
petition under Section 166 of the M.V. Act is not maintainable. Here, in this case, the deceased was pillion rider and therefore, when the facts are",,
different, the Insurance Company cannot rely upon the said decision. Here, the contention of the claimants was that the respondent no.02, who was",,
driving the vehicle at the relevant time, was rash and/or negligent.",,
Taking into consideration the answer to the points, it can be concluded that the appellant  Company is not liable to indemnify owner for the death",,
of pillion rider since his risk was not covered under the policy Exhibit 29 (Deceased was not otherwise covered under the Workmen's Compensation,,
Act). He can be said to be a 'gratuitous passenger' at the relevant time. So also, the driver i.e. respondent no.02 was not the owner of the vehicle",,
and therefore, claim of the claimant granted against the appellant  Insurance Company cannot be sustained. The said order is required to be",,
modified.    Â,,
Now, it is to be noted in view of my finding to point no.01, that the Insurance Company ought not to have been saddled with the amount of",,
compensation   since the risk of the pillion rider was not covered. The said finding to issue no.02 given by the Tribunal is required to be set,,
aside. The entire amount of compensation, whatever was ordered by the Tribunal, was deposited in this Court and by order passed on 14.12.2007 in",,
Civil Application No. 9108 of 2007, this Court permitted the claimants to withdraw amount of Rs. 1,00,000/Â. The remaining amount to the tune of",,
Rs. 1,71,500/ was to be invested with State Bank of Hyderabad. Earlier, the Insurance Company has deposited the amount under no fault liability",,
and it was withdrawn by the complainant. So also, as aforesaid, the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/ has been withdrawn by them under the permission of",,
this Court. Taking into consideration the economic background of the original claimants, it will not be appropriate to pass an order of recovery from",,
them regarding the said amount. It would be in the interest of justice to give liberty to the present appellant  Company to recover the entire,,
amount which it has paid / deposited towards the impugned award from the original respondent nos.01 and 02.,,
In the result, following order is passed :",,
(a) The appeal is hereby partly allowed.,,
(b) The order / award passed by the Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Beed, in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 45 of 2005, on",,
18.01.2007 is hereby modified as follows :Â,,
Respondent nos.01 and 02 shall jointly and severally pay amount of Rs. 2,17,500/Â (Rs. 3,21,500/Â minus Rs. 50,000/Â towards no fault liability)",,
along with interest thereon at the rate of 9 percent per annum from the date of institution of the claim i.e. 28.02.2005 till the date of award. The,,
claim against respondent no.03 stands dismissed. Respondent no.03 is at liberty to recover the amount which has been deposited / paid by it to the,,
claimants towards no fault liability and towards the main award, from respondent nos.01 and 02, together with interest at the rate of 6 percent per",,
annum from the date of the award till its realization. """,,