(Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ.)
Vasuki and Another _______________________________ Appellant(s);
v.
Santhi and Another ______________________________ Respondent(s).
Civil Appeal Nos. 6257-6258 of 2021 (@ SLP(C) No. 13041-13042/2017), decided on October 7, 2021
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. Leave granted.
2. The challenge in the present appeals is to an order passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam on 17.03.2016 whereby the claim for compensation on account of death of Kumar filed by the children of the deceased was dismissed for the reason that the vehicle belonged to their mother and driven by the father, therefore, the ‘personal accident coverage’ will not be applicable as the coverage under the policy after payment of additional premium cannot be extended to the driver who is not the third party.
3. The Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal (in short, ‘the MACT’) in its order dated 17.08.2015, assessed the compensation payable to the appellants as Rs. 3,16,500/- along with interest at the rate of 9% but the liability to pay such amount was fasten on their mother owner of the car rather than of the insurance company for the reason that the insurance coverage does not extend to the driver who was driving the vehicle with authority of the owner.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant has paid an extra premium of Rs. 100/- and premium of Rs. 50/- was paid to cover personal accident coverage for owner driver as well as limited liability coverage for the employees respectively. Therefore, in terms of personal accident coverage for the owner and driver, the liability of the insurance compensation is unlimited as a reading of the policy does not show any limit on the quantification of the liability.
5. Mr. Abhishek Gola, learned counsel for the insurance company pointed out that in terms of Indian Motor Tariff, the liability of the insurance company is limited in respect of personal accident coverage, therefore, the liability of the insurance company is limited. However, he could not point out any clause from the policy to show that the liability of the insurance company is limited. Mr. Gola, learned counsel also could not point out any clause from the policy that the Indian Motor Tariff would be applicable in respect of the liability of personal accident coverage for the owner and driver. Mr. Gola, learned counsel has referred to a judgment of this Court reported in (2020) 2 SCC 550, titled ‘Ramkhiladi v. United India Insurance Company’ to contend that the personal accident coverage is limited. It is argued that it was a case of motorcycle whereas the liability of the insurance company is limited to Rs. 1,00,000/- in respect of personal accident coverage but in respect of four-wheeler, the liability is limited to Rs. 2,00,000/-.
6. However, we are unable to agree with the arguments raised. The policy is categorical, indemnifying the personal accident claim of the owner and driver. There is no cap on the amount of compensation payable by the insurance company in the policy. There is no condition in the policy that tariff fixed by the Indian Motor Tariff would be applicable in respect of personal accident claim.
7. The judgment in Ramkhiladi (supra) was a case where there was an accident between two motorcycles. One motorcycle which was other than driven by the deceased, the owner, driver and the insurance company were not impleaded as respondent. Therefore, in terms of the policy, the personal accident benefit was limited to a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- which was produced before the Court.
8. The arguments that the driver cannot be treated to be third party as against the owner is not disputed but the fact is that the insured having taken a personal accident policy in respect of the owner if she herself was driven or the driver who happens to be her husband, the liability of the insurance company is limited.
9. In view of the said fact, we find that the order of the High Court is not sustainable and the same is set aside. The insurance company shall pay the amount of compensation as awarded by the MACT. The amount be paid to the appellants within a period of two months.
10. Consequently, the appeals are allowed.
11. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 13041-13042/2017
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 17-03-2016 in MACA No. 84/2016, 21-12-2016 in RP No. 1019/2016 in MACA No. 84/2016 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam)
Vasuki & Anr.….Petitioner(s)
v.
Santhi & Anr.….Respondent(s)
Date: 07-10-2021 These petitions were called on for hearing today.
(Before Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ.)
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Renjith B. Marar, Adv.
Mr. Lakshmi N. Kaimal, AOR
MR. Surabhi Santosh, Adv.
Mr. Arun Poomulli, Adv.
Ms. Meera M., Adv.
Mr. Balasubramaniam. R, Adv.
Mr. Anil Sharma, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. C.K Gola, Adv.
Mr. Abhishek Gola, Adv.
Mr. Viresh B. Saharya, AOR
Mr. Akshat Agarwal, Adv.
Mr. Anshul Mehral, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
ORDER
12. Leave granted.
13. The appeals are allowed in terms of the signed order.
14. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
———
