Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Shri Chand Sharma & Ors.

Delhi High Court · 28 Aug 2017 · 2017:DHC:4882
R. K. Gauba
MAC Appeal No.620/2009
2017:DHC:4882
civil appeal_allowed Significant

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court held that a person riding a borrowed vehicle with the owner's consent is not a third party under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and thus the insurer is not liable to pay compensation under the third party insurance policy.

Full Text
Translation output
MAC Appeal No.620/2009 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 28th August, 2017
MAC.APP. 620/2009 and CM APPL.18414-18415/2009
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED... Appellant
Through: Mr. Pradeep Gaur, Advocate
VERSUS
SHRI CHAND SHARMA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Nemo.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT
(ORAL)

1. The accident claim case (MACT No.36/2007) which was instituted on 29.01.2007 by the first and second respondents (the claimants), invoking the structured formula, under the principle of nofault liability in terms of Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, resulted in judgment dated 27.08.2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the tribunal), awarding compensation in the total sum of Rs.3,17,400/-, fastening the liability on the appellant insurance company (insurer).

2. The facts, as stated in the claim petition, noted by the tribunal in the impugned judgment, are that on 03.01.2007 Amit Sharma, the deceased, was riding motorcycle bearing registration No.DL-5SU- 7568 which came to be involved in a collision with one bicycle resulting in he suffering injuries that proved fatal. The motorcycle 2017:DHC:4882 MAC Appeal No.620/2009 belonged and was registered in the name of the third respondent and insured against third party risk at the instance of the said respondent with the appellant insurance company.

3. While contesting, the insurance company had taken the plea that the deceased was not a third party since he had borrowed the motorcycle from the registered owner. This defence was repelled.

4. The plea of the insurance company to the above effect must be accepted in view of the rulings of the Supreme Court in New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs. Sadanand Mukhi & Ors., (2009) 2 SCC 417, Ningamma & Anr. vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd., (2009) 13 SCC 710 and decisions of this court following the said law in a series of judgments including Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Shakuntala & Anr., MAC APP.142/2007, decided on 2nd March, 2016.

5. Since the deceased had borrowed the vehicle in question from its owner, he had stepped into the shoes of latter and, therefore, he cannot be treated as a third party for calling upon the insurance company to indemnify or pay. The impugned judgment, in so far as it held the insurance company liable is set aside.

6. The appeal of the insurance company with accompanying applications stands allowed. The amount deposited by the insurance company, with statutory amount, with corresponding interest shall be refunded. R.K.GAUBA, J. AUGUST 28, 2017 vk