Judgment related to DriverOwner under MV Act

 

Judgment related to DriverOwner under MV Act

1Vehicle not driven by owner but the deceased, no additional premium was paid to cover the risk of other than the owner of vehicle Whether IC is liable. Held ; no.

2009 ACJ 998 (SC)

2 Act policy deceased was not the owner of the car IC seeks to avoid its liability on the ground that deceased was driving the car without the consent of the owner. Owner deposed that deceased was driving the car with his consent whether IC is liable. Held ;no deceased stepped in to the shoes of the owner

2009 ACJ 2020 (SC), 2011 ACJ 2251 (P&H)

3 Death of the owner of the truck – IC disputed its liability on the ground that there is “Act policy” and risk only TP is covered sustainable. Held ;no. it was proved by the claimant that extra premium was paid and IC has deliberately not mentioned the nature of policy in the cover note IC failed to discharge its burden and prove that policy was ‘Act policy’ and IC’s liability was restricted to statutory liability IC held liable

2011 ACJ 2275 (SIK)

4 S.147, 166 motor accident owner himself involved in accident, resulting in his death he himself was negligent accident did not involve any other motor vehicle liability of Insurance Company claim petition under S. 166 maintainability of held, liability of insurer company is to the extent of indemnification of insured against injured persons, a third person or in respect of damages of property if insured cannot be fastened with any liability,

question not arise additional premium under the insurance policy was not paid in respect of entire risk of death or bodily injury of owner of vehicle present case did not fall under S. 147(b) as it

covers a risk of a third party only

2007(9) SCC 263 – Jumma Shaha

5 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 S. 147 question for consideration as to whether comprehensive policy would cover risk of injury to owner of vehicle also Tribunal directed driver and insurance company to pay compensation to appellant owner of vehicle appellant

challenged order whereby it was held that as appellant was owner of vehicle insurance company is not liable to pay him any compensation insurance policy covers liability incurred by insured in respect of death of or bodily injury to any person carried in vehicle or damage to any property of third party whether premium paid under heading 'Own damage' is for covering liability towards personal injury held, S. 147 does not require insurance company to assume risk for death or bodily injury to

owner of vehicle where owner of vehicle has no liability to third party, insurance company also has no liability also it has not been shown that policy covered any risk for injury to owner himself premium paid under heading 'Own damage' does not cover liability towards personal injury premium is towards damage to vehicle and not for injury to person of owner appeal dismissed.

2004 (8) SCC 553 – Dhanraj v/s N.I. A. Com.,

2017 ACJ 2526 (Tri)

Dhanraj's case distinguished by Sikkim High Court by holding that Additional premium was paid for the employee and owner driver

and he was permitted to drive the vehicle as driver specified in 'Driver Clause' – 2017 ACJ 2801 (Sik). Similar view has been

taken by J & k High Court – 2017 ACJ 2821 (J&K)

6 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 S. 147 question for consideration as to whether comprehensive policy would cover risk of injury to owner of vehicle also Tribunal directed driver and insurance company to pay compensation to appellant owner of vehicle appellant challenged order whereby it was held that as appellant was owner of vehicle insurance company is not liable to pay him any compensation insurance policy covers liability incurred by insured in respect of death of or bodily injury to any person carried in vehicle or damage to any property of third party whether

premium paid under heading 'Own damage' is for covering liability towards personal injury held, S. 147 does not require insurance company to assume risk for death or bodily injury to

owner of vehicle where owner of vehicle has no liability to third party insurance company has no liability also it has not been shown that policy covered any risk for injury to owner himself premium paid under heading 'Own damage' does not cover liability towards personal injury premium is towards damage to vehicle and not for injury to person of owner appeal dismissed.

2009(2) SCC 417 –N.I.A v/s Saddanand Mukhi

7 Managing Trustee died in the accident Vehicle was registered in his name whether he can be held as owner? Held ; No.

2012 ACJ 1886

8 Non - joinder of driver IC did not agitated the same during trial, though plea of non – joinder was taken in WS Whether, such plea can be allowed to be raised at the time of final hearing or appeal? Held ; No.

2012 ACJ 2647. SC judgments followed.

9 Act policy – Goods vehicle Whether IC is liable to pay compensation to the employees of the hirer? Held ; No IC is liable to pay compensation only to the employees of owners.

2013 ACJ 1Sanjeev Samrat.

10 Death of the owner of the jeep in such case, IC is not liable to pay compensation.

2013 ACJ 1382 (Del)

11 Motorcycle – Motorcyclist driving motorcycle at moderate speed applied brake in stagnant rain water, vehicle skidded and he sustained injuries IP cover risk of Driver Owner Tribunal found that there was no negligence on the part of the motorcyclist Whether in such situation IC is liable? Held ; Yes In view of the IMT 15.

2014 ACJ 721 (Mad).

12 Owner – driver – Wife is a owner of the vehicle which

being driven by deceased husband whether husband can

be said to be third party for wife? Held ; No. As he stepped in to the shoe of the owner Only entitled for Rs.2,00,000.

2022 ACJ 1510 (Mad)

2014 ACJ 1524 (UK). Also see 2014 ACJ 1574

(Del), wherein it is held that as per IMT GR36 personal accident cover is available to the owner of insured vehicle holding valid and effective licence but anybody driving the vehicle with or without permission of the owner cannot be taken as owner driver.

But in 2022 ACJ 1657 (MP) it is held that even a person who

is not the owner can also claim the benefit of premium made by the owner under the head of personal accident. Also deceased

stepped into the shoe of the owner when IC failed to prove that

accident occurred due to sole negligence of the deceased, claim petition u/s 163A cannot be turned down.

2015 ACJ 2739 (AP) Several SC judgments

relied upon.

Also see 2016 ACJ 335 (Kar) – Rs.1,00,000/awarded.

2022 ACJ 2323 (P & H)

Also see 2018 ACJ 633 (HP) – Rs.2,00,000/awarded.

Also refer 2022 ACJ 2179 (Ker) wherein the difference between the owner and occupant is explained occupant would be covered if the IP is a package policy and owner of the vehicle is covered if the premium is paid under the PA and not vise versa. Also refer 2022 ACJ 2004 (Mad)

13 Ownercumdriver – Additional premium of Rs.2,00,000/paid

– Whether IC is liable to pay? Held; Yes as same is covered under compulsory accident cover.

2014 ACJ 2195 (Mad)

14 Driver on deputation whether temporary employer is

liable to make good to the temporary employee who is

working on deputation with it? Held ; Yes.

2014 ACJ 2791 (Bom).

15 Owner travelling along with his goods which was being

driven by driver and accident occurred and owner sustain injuries – whether IC is liable to pay compensation? Held ; No.

As owner cann’t be held to be Third Party.

2014 ACJ 2869 (AP) Dhanraj v/s NIA Com, 2005

ACJ 1 (SC) followed.

16 Jeep driven by father of the owner policy covers only six passengers actually

11 passengers were travelling jeep fell in to ditch resulting death of all passengers IC is liable not for all claimant IC is directed to pay compensation and further ordered to recover from the owner and driver

2011 AIR SCW 2802K. M. Poonam

17 Driverowner held responsible for causing the accident other

vehicle which dashed with the vehicle of driver owner, did not have valid and effective policy Tribunal jointly held driver owner

and driver of the other vehicle responsible in the said accident

and directed the IC of the driver owner to pay compensation whether sustainable Held ; No. As policy covers only TP and not owner.

2013 ACJ 393 (Cal)SC judgments followed.

18– Driver owner. Owner was driving jeep and sustained fatal injuries – whether IC can be held responsible? Held – yes – as per Section 2(9) of M V Act, any person behind the steering wheel is a driver and owner of the vehicle would also be a driver – if policy is comprehensive and risk of the driver is covered under such policy then IC can be held responsible.

2015 ACJ 2833 (All), 2017 ACJ 2678 (MP)

19– Motor cycle of the owner was borrowed – met with an

accident with truck – additional premium of was paid to driver the risk of Driver owner – whether borrower is entitled to claim compensation as driver of the two wheeler? Held ; Yes.

As term driver is explained in IC as ”any person including the insured”. 2016 ACJ 47 (P&H) 2022 ACJ 1908 (Gau) wherein

it has been held that any person holding valid and effective

licence can be held to driver and is as such covered under the term Owner driver, as additional premium to cover the personal accident PA is paid.

But see 2016 ACJ 1050 (P&H), 2018 ACJ 2469 (P&H) and 2018 ACJ 2499 (P&H) wherein it is held that IC is liable to pay only Rs.50,000/u/s 140 to the borrower of the vehicle as he is not the under and covered under PA Cover and not the entire amount u/s

166.

20 Driver - owner of the auto rickshaw died in the vehicular accident – Auto rickshaw was being pliedby driver and owner – additional premium to cover the risk of own damage and for paid driver was paid by way of comprehensive policy – Whether in such situation, IC can be held liable to pay amount of compensation? Held ; Yes.

2016 ACJ 1565 (Bom)

20 A Whether the Tribunal can award compensation in favour of the paid driver on the basis of principle of MV Act or under the Employee's Compensation Act? Held ; As per the Employee's Compensation Act.

2022 ACJ 1977 (Mad)

20 AA Owner of the Rickshaw was travelling as passenger

in the rickshaw owned by him – accident occurred – whether IC is liable to pay amount of compensation to the owner of the rickshaw, considering his case as TP passenger? Held ;No.

2017 ACJ 1058 (Bom)Dhanraj vs. New India Ass. 2005

ACJ 1 (SC) relied upon.

21 Wife and Son of Driver Owner died in the accident –

in the said accident Driver owner also died whether in such situation claim petition is maintainable against IC without joining the Driver owner?

Held ; Yes.

2017 ACJ 688 (Del)

22 Premium covering risk of Driver owner paid – accident occurred due to the negligence of the paid driver – IC disputed its liability on the count that paid driver is not covered and only driver cum owner is covered whether sustainable? Held No. It

makes no difference as to who was driving the vehicle, whether it was paid driver or driver cum owner. 2018 ACJ 2736 (UK)

23 Meaning of driver owner borrower of the vehicle is not cover under the meaning of Driver Owner – as per GR.36 of the IMT, 2002, only registered owner is within the preview of driver owner

not the borrower of the vehicle. 2019ACJ 2922 (P&H)