THE HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM : GANGTOK
(Civil Appellate Jurisdiction)
th
DATED : 26 September, 2024
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SINGLE BENCH : KSHI MADAN RAI, JUDGE
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAC App. No.18 of 2024
Appellant : The Divisional Manager,
National Insurance Company Limited
versus
Respondents : Bahadur Rai and Another
Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance
Mr. M. N. Dhungel, Advocate for the Appellant.
Mr. R. C. Sharma, Advocate for the Respondent No.1.
Mr. Nirankush Dahal, Advocate for the Respondent No.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
Meenakshi Madan Rai, J.
1. The only ground on which the Judgment of the Learned
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gangtok, Sikkim (hereinafter, the
“MACT”)
, dated 30-04-2024, in MACT Case No.24 of 2021 (Bahadur
Rai vs. The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. and
Another), is assailed is
that the compensation of ₹ 5,00,000/
-
(Rupees five lakhs) only, was awarded to the Respondent No.1 by
the Learned MACT, having reasoned as follows;
The contents of the insurance policy (Exhibit-7)
“17.
shows limits of liability of the insurance company in
terms of Section II(I)(i) of the said policy is upto ₹
7.5 lakhs. This fact is clearly mentioned in the
compromise deed (Exhibit-19). It would also show
the admission of insurance company (at paragraph 7)
that the deceased (one of the other passenger
involved in the same accident and the same vehicle)
was covered under the supra clause and that the
insurance company was liable to pay the
compensation. I have no reason to disagree with
learned Counsel for the petitioner/claimant as to why
the same logic cannot be applied in the present case
when the deceased was one of the passenger in the
same accident vehicle.
MAC App. No.18 of 2024 2
The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited vs. Bahadur Rai and Another
18. Therefore, according to the principle of parity, I
find that the deceased is also covered under Section
II(I)(i) of the said policy and deserves to be paid
compensation of ₹ 5 lakhs by the insurance company.
The question whether the petitioner/ claimant is
entitled to the compensation claimed is answered in
affirmative. Respondent no.1 is liable to pay the same
as above.
”
2. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that, the
Learned MACT had based its Judgment on the principle of parity
when in fact no liability accrues to the Appellant Company to pay
the compensation. That, the vehicle in accident was a private
vehicle and although the vehicle was duly insured it did not cover
liabilities for passengers in the vehicle, hence the Judgment of the
Learned MACT be set aside.
3. Learned Counsel for the Respondents No.1 on the other
hand contended that, the Appellant Company had agreed to pay
compensation of - (Rupees five lakhs) only, in
₹ 5,00,000/ Dorjee
vs. , MAC App. No.12 of
Tshering Bhutia Dhan Maya Rai and Another
2019, filed before this Court. The Claimant therein was the kin of
a person who was travelling in the same vehicle and was a fatality.
The Appellant was aware of the fact that they were liable to pay
the compensation as the vehicle was duly insured. It was not a
gratuitous settlement by the Appellant but was a well thought out
compromise, arrived at to the benefit the Appellant Company,
which concluded in the settlement of - (Rupees five
₹ 5,00,000/
lakhs) only, vide Annexure A-2, relied on by the Appellant. Hence,
there is no error in the Judgment of the Learned MACT which
correctly held that the principle of parity is applicable and the same
amount be paid by the Appellant Insurance Company herein.
4. Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.2 had no
separate submissions to advance and endorsed the contentions put
forth by Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1.
MAC App. No.18 of 2024 3
The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited vs. Bahadur Rai and Another
5. From the documents on record before this Court and
from the rival submissions of Learned Counsel for the parties, it is
apparent that the kin of another passenger involved in the same
accident and in the same vehicle was paid
compensation of ₹
5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs) only, by the Insurance Company,
thereby implicitly conceding that the Insurance Company was
indeed liable to pay the compensation to the Claimant who sought
compensation on account of the passing of their kin/family in the
unfortunate accident. It was not a settlement arrived at by the
Appellant based on any altruism or misplaced magnanimity. It is
also seen in Paragraph 17 of the impugned Judgment
extracted supra that, in terms of Section II(I)(i) of the Policy of
Insurance, -
the limits of liability was in fact up to ₹ 7,50,000/
(Rupees seven lakhs and fifty thousand) only, but a compromise
was arrived at between the parties in (supra)
Dorjee Tshering Bhutia
and the matter settled by payment of compensation of ₹
5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs) only, by the Insurance Company to
the Claimants therein. Although an Appeal had been filed before
this Court, the Insurance Company (Appellant herein) did not seek
to contest the Appeal and instead arrived at the compromise with
the Claimant as posited above.
6. It is relevant to notice that in Annexure A- Joint
2 the “
Compromise Deed/Settlement Agreement the following has been
”
stated in Paragraphs 5 and 7;
5. That as the contents of the policy obtained by
“
the Appellant / Second Party and issued by
Respondent No.01 / First Party had clause
under the hearing
– “Limits of Liability Clause”
which is reproduced as under as averred at
paragraph 14 of the present appeal pending for
disposal before Hon’ble High Court of Sikkim, in
M.A.C. App. No.12 of 2019 Dorjee Tshering
–
Bhutia vs Dhan Maya Rai and Another, as
–
MAC App. No.18 of 2024 4
The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited vs. Bahadur Rai and Another
Limits of Liability Clause: Under Section
II(I)(i) of the Policy Death or bodily
–
injury. Such amount as is necessary to
meet the requirements of the Motor
Vehicle Act, 1988. Under Section II(I)(i)
of the policy Damage to third party
–
property is Rs.7,50,000/-, P.A. Cover
under Section 3 for owner-driver is
Rs.2.00 Lakhs.
……………………………………………………………………………………
7. That the Respondent No.02 / FIRST PARTY i.e.
National Insurance Company Limited, Gangtok
Branch, Gangtok, East Sikkim, hereby ratifies
and agreed that that the deceased was
covered by virtue of the above clause, thus the
present Appellant / SECOND PARTY (Insured)
is not liable to pay or satisfy the award and
admit the liability to pay the Compensation as
directed by the Ld. Member, Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, at Gangtok, East Sikkim in
M.A.C.T. Case No: 07 of 2017, vide Judgment
Dated: 22.06.2019, which is under challenged
by the Appellant / SECOND PARTY (Insured)
as the Appellant / SECOND PARTY (Insured) is
made liable to satisfy the award /
compensation to the Third Party i.e. Claimant /
Petitioner / Respondent No.1.”
[emphasis supplied]
7. In view of such settlement and the admission and
explicit acceptance thereof that the deceased in that case was
covered by the policy of insurance which the Insurance Company
was liable to pay, no error arises in the finding of the Learned
5,00,000/-
MACT directing the Appellant to pay compensation of ₹
(Rupees five lakhs) only, with interest @ 9% per annum, from the
date of filing of the application, i.e., 23-12-2021, till full and final
realization, as similarly situated persons cannot be treated
differently. That would be a travesty of justice.
8. In the end result, the Appeal stands dismissed and
disposed of accordingly.
9. Copy of this Judgment be forwarded to the Learned
MACT for information along with its records.
( Meenakshi Madan Rai )
Judge
26-09-2024
Approved for reporting : Yes
ds/sdl