Cause Title: Bandarla Naveen Kumar v. Balaji Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd & Anr.
Summary
The Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that the son of the vehicle’s owner is not a third party and cannot be compensated by the insurance company under third-party insurance claims. The claimant, a lorry cleaner, filed a claim petition against the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle. The insurance company cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sadanand Mukhi (2009), which stated that the insurance company is not liable to compensate the claimant if the claimant is not a third party in relation to the insurance company. The court determined that the claimant is solely responsible for compensating the offending vehicle’s owner for any losses incurred. The appeal was disregarded for lack of merit, and the Tribunal’s order was upheld.
About the case
Justice V Gopala Krishna Rao of the Andhra Pradesh High Court observed in a motor accident claim case that the son of the proprietor of the offending vehicle is not a third party and cannot be compensated by the insurance company under third-party insurance claims.
The petitioner sustained grievous injuries as a result of the lorry driver’s reckless driving, which resulted in an accident involving the claimant, who was employed as a lorry cleaner. The petitioner submitted a claim petition for compensation and costs under the Motor Vehicle Act against the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle.
The proprietor of the offending vehicle was permitted to pay partial compensation by the Tribunal, and the claim petition against the insurance company was dismissed. The claimant favored the immediate appeal due to his dissatisfaction with the award.
The petitioner’s appeal arguments were exclusively focused on the legal question of whether the insurance company’s exemption from paying compensation to the claimant is legally permissible.
The petitioner is the son of the lorry proprietor, as evidenced by the Tribunal’s proceedings. Additionally, the insurance policy indicates that the risk is only covered for third parties, and the owner’s son is not included in the definition of a “third party.” The insurance company cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sadanand Mukhi (2009), which stated that “the insurance company is not liable to compensate the claimant in the event that the claimant is not a third party in relation to the insurance company.”
In United India Insurance Company Limited v. Om Prakash (2010), another Apex Court decision, it was determined that “the claimants in all the three original petitions are not third parties under the Act or under the terms and conditions of the policy. Consequently, the Tribunal below has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim petitions filed by them, and the appellant Insurance company is not liable to pay compensation to the claimants.”
Consequently, the petitioner’s status as the son of the vehicle’s proprietor renders him ineligible for inclusion as a third party. Consequently, the insurance company is precluded from imposing liability, as the court determined. It was further stated that the claimant is solely responsible for compensating the proprietor of the offending vehicle for any losses incurred as a result of the accident. The appeal was disregarded for lack of merit, and the Tribunal’s order was upheld.
