Future Generally (Generali) INDIA Insurance Company LTD Thro Its Deputy Manager Priyanka Mondel vs. Premiya Devi

Facts

The claimants filed a claim case alleging that on November 15, 2020, the deceased, Lakhan Saw, was traveling on a motorcycle when it slipped due to stone chips on the road. Subsequently, a Cater Pillar Motor Grader/Road Roller bearing registration No. Jh-12F-2738 dashed them. Both were injured and admitted to Sadar Hospital, Koderma. The deceased, Lakhan Saw, a labourer earning Rs. 23,000/- per month and the sole bread-earner, died on the way to RIMS, Ranchi. The offending vehicle was allegedly insured with M/s Future Generally India Insurance Company Limited. The Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal, Koderma, allowed the claim for Rs. 8,11,312/- with interest. The Insurance Company appealed this decision.

Held

The Court held that the Cater Pillar Motor Grader/Road Roller falls within the definition of a 'motor vehicle' under Section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as it is a mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for use upon roads. The Court reasoned that the definition includes vehicles suitable for road use, and the exemption for vehicles used only in factories or enclosed premises does not apply here. The Court found that the insurance policy, as evidenced by the policy details, covered third-party liability, and the premium for this was paid. Clause 15 of the policy, relied upon by the appellant, was interpreted to mean that while the policy might exclude liability under the Motor Vehicle Act for certain categories of vehicles, third-party liability for this vehicle was indeed covered. The Court noted that the appellant failed to lead any evidence before the Tribunal to prove their contention of exclusion or violation of policy terms. The interest awarded at 6% per annum, escalating to 9% upon non-payment, was also deemed not illegal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Cater Pillar Motor Grader/Road Roller was a motor vehicle covered under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and thus mandatorily required to be insured for third-party liability? (Section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988). The appellant (Insurance Company) argued that the road roller was not insured under the Motor Vehicle Act as per Section 147 and that Clause 15 of the policy excluded third-party liability for such vehicles. They contended that the Tribunal wrongly decided this issue and that the interest awarded was excessive. The respondents (Claimants) argued that the Tribunal correctly decided that the policy covered the accident and that the Insurance Company failed to point out any specific violation of policy terms, having not even filed a written statement. They asserted that the appellant failed to prove their case.