Guwahati, Nov 27: The Gauhati High Court has set aside an order of a motor accident claims tribunal in a case concerning the death of an occupant of an insured vehicle owing to rash and negligent driving.
The tribunal had directed the insurance company (appellant) to first pay compensation to the claimant and subsequently recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle.
“… I am of the considered opinion that the direction of the claims tribunal to the insurance company to pay the compensation awarded first to the claimant and thereafter, to recover the same from the owner later on is not sustainable and, therefore, is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, that part of the direction is set aside,” a single-judge bench of the High Court stated in the order.
Instead, the court directed that the owner/insurer was liable to satisfy the tribunal’s award and pay compensation to the claimant by depositing the awarded amount before the tribunal within a period of three months.
The incident dates back to January 23, 2013 when the claimant and her husband were travelling on the vehicle, and owing to rash and negligent driving, the vehicle hit a tree, leading to the claimant sustaining grievous injuries and her husband dying on the spot.
The claimant thereafter filed a petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 2, Kamrup (Tribunal) for compensation due to the death of her husband.
The insurance company (appellant) contested the case by arguing that the policy issued in respect of the vehicle in question was a private car policy and did not cover the occupants travelling in a private car.
However, negating the arguments of the appellant company, the tribunal passed the impugned judgment and order dated January 20, 2015 and awarded a sum of Rs 12, 17,800 with interest at the rate of six percent from the date of filing the claim petition till its realisation and directed the insurance company (appellant) to pay the same to the claimant within 90 days from the date of the impugned order.
Aggrieved by the tribunal’s order, the insurance company appealed before the High Court. The counsel appearing for the insurance company submitted that the insurance company was not liable to pay compensation since the insurance policy did not cover the risk of the occupants travelling in a private car.
On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the claimant (respondent) submitted that the tribunal had rightly passed the order under the doctrine of pay and recovery as there was a valid insurance policy at the relevant time of the incident.
After hearing the arguments, the court observed that although the concerned policy did not cover the risk of the vehicle occupants, the insurance company had been directed to pay the claimant since the policy was valid at the time of the incident and considering the fact that the offending vehicle was duly insured by the insurance company.