Case Note & Summary
The present appeal was filed by the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (the appellant) challenging the judgment and award dated 18-08-2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Beed in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.121 of 2003. The Tribunal had partly allowed the claim filed by the respondents No.1 to 6 (the original claimants) and held the appellant company liable to pay compensation jointly and severally with original opponent No.1 (respondent No.7). The factual matrix of the case is that the original claimants are the legal heirs of one Babasaheb Dagdu Mane, who died in a motor accident. Babasaheb had two wives (claimants No.1 and 2), two minor children (claimants No.3 and 4) from the second wife, and his parents (claimants No.5 and 6). Babasaheb was aged 42 years and was an agriculturist, labourer, and also did business in shoes and chappals. He was also serving as a Police Patil. The accident occurred on 27-04-2003 when Babasaheb was going on a motorcycle and a tractor-trolley (bearing registration No. MH-23/2453) driven by respondent No.7 (Prabhakar Javre) dashed against him, causing fatal injuries. The claimants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 3,50,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization, holding the appellant insurance company liable to pay the amount jointly and severally with the owner of the tractor (respondent No.7). The insurance company appealed, contending that the driver did not hold a valid driving license at the time of the accident, and therefore the company should not be liable. The court considered the legal issue of whether the insurance company can avoid liability on the ground of breach of policy conditions. The court held that even if there is a breach of policy conditions, the insurance company is liable to pay compensation to third-party victims and then recover the amount from the insured. The court relied on the principle of 'pay and recover' as established in various Supreme Court judgments. The court also upheld the multiplier of 14 applied by the Tribunal based on the age of the deceased (42 years) as per the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The court found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it, confirming the award of the Tribunal.
Headnote
A) Motor Accident Claims - Third Party Liability - Breach of Policy Conditions - The insurance company is liable to pay compensation to third-party victims even if there is a breach of policy conditions, such as the driver not holding a valid driving license, and then recover the amount from the insured. The court relied on the principle of 'pay and recover' as established in various Supreme Court judgments. (Paras 1-10) B) Motor Accident Claims - Compensation - Multiplier - The Tribunal correctly applied the multiplier of 14 based on the age of the deceased (42 years) as per the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The court upheld the award of Rs. 3,50,000/- with interest at 6% per annum. (Paras 11-15)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the insurance company can avoid liability on the ground that the driver did not hold a valid driving license at the time of the accident, and whether the insurer is liable to pay compensation to third-party victims and then recover from the insured.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Beed in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.121 of 2003 dated 18-08-2005 is confirmed. The appellant insurance company is directed to pay the compensation amount to the claimants and then recover the same from the insured (respondent No.7) in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Motor Accident Claims
- Third Party Liability
- Breach of Policy Conditions
- Pay and Recover
- Section 149 Motor Vehicles Act
- 1988
- Section 166 Motor Vehicles Act
