http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  5067 of 2007

PETITIONER: New India Assurance Co. Ltd

RESPONDENT: Kendra Devi & Ors

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 31/10/2007

BENCH: Tarun Chatterjee & P. Sathasivam

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T  (Arising out of S.L.P.(c) No. 7686 of 2006) P.Sathasivam,J 1)      Leave granted. 2)      Questioning the orders  of the High Court of Uttaranchal  at Nainital dated 24.08.2004 in A.O. No. 436 of 2001 and  dated 27.10.2005 in R.A. No.8 of 2005, New India Assurance  Company Ltd. through its Regional Manager, New Delhi has  filed the above appeal. 3)      Brief facts are as follows: Smt. Kendra Devi, respondent No.1 herein, filed  Claim  Petition - M.A.C. No.4 of 1994,  before the Motor Accident  Claims Tribunal, Uttarkashi, claiming compensation of  Rs.4,67,000/- on account of death of her husband in a motor  vehicle accident.  According to respondent No.1 herein, her  husband, Prakash Singh Parmar, was the owner and driver of  Taxi No. UMX 491.  On 10.11.1993 while her husband was  going from Matali to Uttarkashi, he lost control over the  vehicle and met with an accident due to which the vehicle  rolled into the river Bhagirathi near Barrthi.  Her husband  sustained fatal injuries in the accident and succumbed to the  injuries at the spot.  According to respondent No.1, at the time  of the accident her husband was earning Rs.3000/- per  month. 4)      Before the Tribunal, the appellant, New India Assurance  Co. Ltd. contended that the vehicle was insured only for five  persons whereas it was carrying eight passengers, therefore,  the owner and driver of the vehicle violated the terms and  conditions of the Insurance Policy, in view of the same, they  are not liable to pay compensation to the claimants.  The  Tribunal, based on the materials before it, after finding that  the driver of the vehicle had valid licence and taking note of  the age of the deceased i.e., 50 years, by applying multiplier of  ten, awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,25,000/- along with  interest @ 12%.  Aggrieved by the said award, the Insurance  Company filed an appeal before the High Court.  The High  Court, after finding no infirmity and illegality in the order  passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, dismissed the  appeal and the review application filed by the Insurance  Company was also dismissed.  Against the said orders of the  High Court, the New India Assurance Company Ltd.  filed the  present appeal. 5)      Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant-New  India Assurance Company as well as the respondents- claimants. 6)      The only contention of the learned counsel for the  appellant-Insurance Company, is that inasmuch as the  insurance policy was issued for \023paid driver\024 and not for  \023owner\024 who also happened to drive the vehicle himself at the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

time of the accident.  In support of his contention, learned  counsel drew our attention to the Insurance Policy(Annexure  P-3).   Perusal of the Schedule of Premium mentioned in the  Insurance Policy,  shows that apart from liability to public  risk, the owner has paid premium only for  \023paid driver and/or  conductor\024.  By contending that in the case on hand, the  deceased being the owner-cum-driver and without additional  premium/coverage for owner-cum-driver, the insurance  company is not liable to pay any compensation for death of the  deceased who was owner-cum-driver and not paid driver as  mentioned in the Schedule of Premium.  In support of his  contention, learned counsel for the appellant heavily relied on  Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which speaks  about the statutory liabilities and a decision of this Court in  New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Meera Bai & Ors., (2006)  9 SCC 174.   7)      We have carefully considered the above provision as well  the decision of this Court.  Taking note of the peculiar fact  that the claimants have lost their only breadwinner, we are not  inclined to interfere with the concurrent orders of the Tribunal  as well as the High Court.  Consequently, the appeal fails and  the same is dismissed.