Special Provisions has to be read in consonance with the Intention of the Legislature and not to be read alone.

Yugashree | School of Law Sastra University, Thanjavur | 19 March 2020

Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited VS R. Damodharan and another

Facts:

• Oriental Insurance Company that is the appellant of this case filed before the Madras High Court on the ground that the motor accident damages tribunal inappropriately entertained the claim that is actually untenable and awarded compensation.
• The accident was apparently caused by an unknown JCB and not by the respondent’s motorcycle, and the motorcycle policy did not cover the liability of the insured owner with the insurer.
• The tribunal found that the insurance protected just responsibility, not the owner’s risk and the crash happened because of the JCB’s reckless and careless driving. The tribunal, however, had awarded the complainant an award amounting to 1,76,665/-which the tribunal would ultimately have dismissed. The case was reported with an enormous delay of 210days which leads to serious questioning of the case’s genuineness.
• A claim under the Motor Vehicles Act can only be made if the tort-feasor is liable and the tort-feasor claimant is not entitled alone to sustain a claim under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act
• It was argued before the tribunal that JCB that came behind the vehicle hit the claimant’s vehicle from the backside and caused the claimant injury. The owner and the JCB driver are responsible in this case, and not the insurance provider. It was also claimed that, on the basis of section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Compensation Act, the tribunal had not adjudicated.
• In the event that a third party is involved, the liability of the insurance company would be unlimited. It was also held that, where compensation is claimed for the death of the owner or another passenger of the vehicle, the insurance contract is governed by the qua contract, the claim of the claimant against the insurance company would depend on the term of the contract. This means that if the owner of the vehicle itself is involved in the application of the Act 163A of the MVA, the person cannot be both the claimant and the beneficiary in respect of the claim and, in circumstances where the victim died or was disabled or injured, the insurance company is liable to pay compensation, but in this case the victim is not the owner of the vehicle and borrowed the vehicle from the insurance company.

Judgement:

• In this case, the claim cannot be maintained pursuant to section 163A as the claimant borrowed the owner’s vehicle and entered the owner’s shoes. Section 163A of the Act on Motor Vehicles. The Special Provision can definitely not be read in isolation and Sections 147, 166, and 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act were considered by the Apex Court. Thus, the Special Provision is to be read in conjunction with the object, the purpose as well as the intention of the Legislature.
• The court also claimed that when applying special provision isolation to the other provisions of the Statute, the very object would be defeated and that the courts should not render an interpretation of a special provision which is otherwise intended to grant such benefits with regard to the grant of compensation in the event that negligence was not established. Court considered the possibility that even personal accident compensation should not be accepted in situations where the victim is not the registered owner and cited the three conditions of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act to be met in determining a personal accident claim.
• The Court held that as both the parties have agreed to the terms of the contract, in the event of superseding the terms of the contract and in respect of the contract courts are bound to consider the terms and conditions of the contract.
• Finally, the court ruled in favour of the appellant stating that the scope of section 163A should not be extended to include the vehicle borrower for insurance claims and not also in cases of personal accident policy and that this principle was upheld by the court ruled that the claim petition was unsustainable and not entertainable and could be dismissed.
• The court also quashed the judgement decree by the Tribunal and any amount credited to the Claimant shall be withdrawn.