Claimant Being Son Of Vehicle's Owner Is Not Covered Under Third Party Insurance Policy: Andhra Pradesh HC In Motor Accident Case
The Andhra Pradesh High Court in a motor accident case has observed that a claimant is son of owner of vehicle and hence is not protected under third party insurance claim.
The Court was dealing with a case wherein the claimant was aggrieved by the order passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby an amount of Rs. 1,13,550/- was awarded against the claim of Rs. 10 lakhs.
A Single Bench of Justice V. Gopala Krishna Rao held, “The material on record reveals that the risk of the claimant is not covered under Ex.B.1-policy, the claimant is not a third party and he is none other than the son of the owner of the offending vehicle/1st respondent. Therefore, the 2nd respondent cannot fasten the liability of the 1st respondent. It is for the 1st respondent alone to compensate the claimant for the loss sustained by him due to the accident.”
The Bench did not find any legal flaw or infirmity in the finding given by the Tribunal and said that the appeal is devoid of merits.
In this case, the claimant filed a claim petition under Section 166 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the respondents praying the Tribunal to award an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- towards compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that occurred in 2008. The claimant was engaged as a cleaner of a lorry of the 1st respondent (owner) and on the instructions, brinjals were loaded in the said lorry for taking them to Chennai.
When the lorry reached bus stop, the driver of the lorry drove the same at high speed behind a lorry and when the said lorry stopped, the driver of the lorry of the owner could not control it and dashed and on account of the said impact, the petitioner sustained severe injuries. The respondents were jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimant. Being aggrieved by the award of the Tribunal, the claimant preferred an instant appeal before the High Court.
The High Court after hearing the contentions of the counsel for the parties observed, “… the law is well settled that the claimant has to prove that he is a third party and his interest is protected under Ex.B.1-policy, but he failed to do so.”
The Court noted that the Tribunal, by giving cogent reasons, came to the conclusion that the 2nd respondent/Insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation and the 1st respondent alone is liable to pay the compensation to the claimant and that no appeal is filed by the 1st respondent against the said finding.
The Court said, “I do not find any legal flaw or infirmity in the finding given by the Tribunal in exonerating the 2nd respondent/Insurance company from payment of the compensation to the claimant and the order passed by the Tribunal is perfectly sustainable under law and it warrants no interference. The appeal is devoid of merits, therefore, it is liable to be dismissed.”
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the appeal.
Cause Title- Bandarla Naveen Kumar v. Balaji Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr.
