Case: NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD Vs. ASHALATA BHOWMIK

3. The first respondent is the mother of deceased Dilip Bhowmik. The second respondent is his wife and respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are his children.at about 7.00 p.m. Dilip Bhowmik was returning from Kathaltali to his house by driving his vehicle bearing No.When he reached near the bridge of Agartala Railway Station situated on theunder Amtali police station, he met with an accident and sustained grievous injuries on his person. He was initially rushed to Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Memorial Teaching Hospital, Hapania. Thereafter, he was referred to AGMC and GBP hospital, Agartala, where he was declared dead. At the time of the accident he was aged 43 years. The respondents alleged that the deceased was a businessman and his monthly income was Rs.They filed a claim petition seeking compensation amounting to Rs.The claim petition was opposed by theThe appellant challenged the said award of the Tribunal before the High Court mainly contending that the deceased himself was thedriver of the offending vehicle. He was not a third party within the meaning of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the Act). The accident had occurred due to the negligence of the deceased. Therefore, the appellant, being insurer of the vehicle, was not liable to pay the compensation.5. The High Court accepted the contention of the appellant that the deceased was not a third party and that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. However, the High Court directed the appellant to pay the compensation with a rider that the said order shall not be treated as a precedent. On perusal of the policy of the insurance, the High Court in the course of the order observed that indemnification extended to personal accident of thewas limited to the extent of Rs.The finding of the High Court on this question is as under: "As it has been established by the claimantrespondents that the premium was paid for the personal accident the insurance company is liable to pay the said compensation, even though it is limited to Rs.2,00,000/to the claimantrespondents. There is no challenge, however, against the determination of the compensation.The first respondent is the mother of deceased Dilip Bhowmik. The second respondent is his wife and respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are his children.at about 7.00 p.m. Dilip Bhowmik was returning from Kathaltali to his house by driving his vehicle bearing No.n he reached near the bridge of Agartala Railway Station situated on ther Amtali police station, he met with an accident and sustained grievous injuries on his person. He was initially rushed to Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Memorial Teaching Hospital, Hapania. Thereafter, he was referred to AGMC and GBP hospital, Agartala, where he was declared dead. At the time of the accident he was aged 43 years. The respondents alleged that the deceased was a businessman and his monthly income was Rs.y filed a claim petition seeking compensation amounting to Rs.e claim petition was opposed by thee appellant challenged the said award of the Tribunal before the High Court mainly contending that the deceased himself was ther of the offending vehicle. He was not a third party within the meaning of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the Act). The accident had occurred due to the negligence of the deceased. Therefore, the appellant, being insurer of the vehicle, was not liable to pay the compensation.5. The High Court accepted the contention of the appellant that the deceased was not a third party and that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. However, the High Court directed the appellant to pay the compensation with a rider that the said order shall not be treated as a precedent. On perusal of the policy of the insurance, the High Court in the course of the order observed that indemnification extended to personal accident of thes limited to the extent of Rs.e finding of the High Court on this question is as under: "As it has been established by the claimantrespondents that the premium was paid for the personal accident the insurance company is liable to pay the said compensation, even though it is limited to Rs.2,00,000/to the claimantrespondents. There is no challenge, however, against the determination of the

Court's reasoning:
A Claimant, in our view, cannot maintain a claim on the basis of his own fault or negligence and argue that even when he himself may have caused the accident on account of his own rash and negligent driving, he can nevertheless make the insurance company to pay for the same. Therefore, the respondents being the LRs of the deceased could not have maintained the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.8. This Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jhuma Saha (Smt) and Ors. (2007) 9 SCC 263 , was considering a similar case where the owner himself was driving the vehicle which due to his negligence dashed with a tree on the roadside as a result of which he died. The Court held that the claim petition filed by his LRs was not maintainable. It was held thus:"10. The deceased was the owner of the vehicle. For the reasons stated in the claim petition or otherwise, he himself was to be blamed for the accident. The accident did not involve motor vehicle other than the one which he was driving. The question which arises for consideration is that the deceased himself being negligent, the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 would be maintainable.Liability of the insurer Company is to the extent of indemnification of the insured against the respondent or an injured person, a third person or in respect of damages of property. Thus, if the insured cannot be fastened with any liability under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, the question of the insurer being liable to indemnify the insured, therefore, does not arise".9. Therefore, the High Court was not justified in directing the appellant/insurer to pay the compensation determined by the Tribunal. Since the indemnification extended to personal accident of the deceased is limited to Rs. 2,00,000/under the contract of insurance, the respondents are entitled for the said amount towardsClaimant, in our view, cannot maintain a claim on the basis of his own fault or negligence and argue that even when he himself may have caused the accident on account of his own rash and negligent driving, he can nevertheless make the insurance company to pay for the same. Therefore, the respondents being the LRs of the deceased could not have maintained the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.8. This Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jhuma Saha (Smt) and Ors. (2007) 9 SCC 263 , was considering a similar case where the owner himself was driving the vehicle which due to his negligence dashed with a tree on the roadside as a result of which he died. The Court held that the claim petition filed by his LRs was not maintainable. It was held thus:"10. The deceased was the owner of the vehicle. For the reasons stated in the claim petition or otherwise, he himself was to be blamed for the accident. The accident did not involve motor vehicle other than the one which he was driving. The question which arises for consideration is that the deceased himself being negligent, the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 would be maintainable.Liability of the insurer Company is to the extent of indemnification of the insured against the respondent or an injured person, a third person or in respect of damages of property. Thus, if the insured cannot be fastened with any liability under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, the question of the insurer being liable to indemnify the insured, therefore, does not arise".9. Therefore, the High Court was not justified in directing the appellant/insurer to pay the compensation determined by the Tribunal. Since the indemnification extended to personal accident of the deceased is limited to Rs. 2,00,000/under the contract of insurance, the respondents are entitled for the said amount towardscompensation. Hence, the appellant is directed to deposit the said sum of Rs. 2,00,000/with interest @ 9 per cent per annum from the date of the Claim Petition till the date of deposit with the Tribunal within a period of four weeks from today.