HYDERABAD: A division bench of the High Court has ruled that an insurance company cannot avoid its liability to pay compensation to the third party who died in a drunk and drive accident case.
As per the conditions of policy, drunk and drive only exonerates the insurance company from payment of compensation in claims made by vehicle owner or driver etc, but not third parties, which include even the government, as defined under Section 145G of the Motor Vehicles Act. A police constable on duty at the time of the accident is certainly a third party, the court observed.
Speaking for the bench, Justice M Satyanarayana Murthy made this order in an appeal by Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company with a plea to grant stay of all further proceedings in pursuance of the judgment dated Feb 4, 2011, passed by the XXII Additional Chief Judge-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, City Criminal Court, Hyderabad. The lower court, while allowing petitioners-claimants, in part, awarded compensation of about Rs 23 lakh as against the original claim of Rs 30 lakh.
As for the case details, Yogender Kumar Rai, a 46-year-old traffic police constable, was on duty at the time of the road accident on Feb 15, 2009, at about 6.25 am near Habsiguda cross-roads, Hyderabad. A car driven in a rash and negligent manner hit a motorcycle and an auto, and later, hit Yogender, killing him on the spot. The accident was immediately reported to Osmania University police station and a case was registered against the driver of car.
On account of untimely death of Yogender, his wife and two children lost their future dependency and earnings. The constable was earning Rs 18,000 per month.
Family members of the deceased filed a petition before the tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs 30 lakh for the untimely death of Yogender. They contended that the first respondent being owner and insured, and the second respondent being the insurer of the car, and the liability under the policy was subsisting as on the date of accident, both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. They prayed for a compensation of Rs 30 lakh.
The owner of the car remained ex-parte, while the insurance company filed counter claiming that it is not liable to pay compensation in the case.
Upon considering oral and documentary evidence, the tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs 23.79 lakh against both the respondents, with proportionate costs and interests at the rate of 7 percent from the date of petition till the date of realisation.
Aggrieved by the award, both the petitioners and the insurance company filed appeals before the High Court. The insurance company raised a specific contention that at the time of the accident the driver was in a drunken condition and a chargesheet was also filed against him under Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, and thus the owner of the car violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Handing over of the car by the owner to the driver, who was in a drunken state, amounts to violation of terms and conditions of the policy. Thereby, the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation. It prayed the court to set aside the award passed by the Tribunal and exonerate the insurance company from payment of compensation. On the other hand, the petitioners-claimants contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not in consonance with the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court. Considering rival contentions, perusing the material available on record, the High Court bench found that the driver of the car was in an inebriated state and caused the accident. “Drunk and driving is not a ground to exonerate the insurance company from payment of compensation,” the court observed.
The bench said as per the conditions of the policy, drunk and drive only exonerates the insurance company from payment of compensation in claims made by the owner or driver etc. Third parties include the government and a police constable attending to duty at the time of accident is a third party. Therefore, the deceased is not expected to know whether the driver is in a fit condition to drive the vehicle. Even if there is any condition that driving of a vehicle in an intoxicated condition is violation of the policy, still the insurance company is liable to pay compensation to the third party, and after the amendment of Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the insurance company cannot avoid this liability.
The bench allowed the petitioners’ appeal, in part, enhancing the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs 23.79 lakh to Rs 32.60 lakh. The rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal remained unaltered. Consequently, it dismissed the appeal filed by the insurance company.