GANGTOK, India, June 5 -- Sikkim High Court issued the following judgment/order on May 22:

1. The Appellant-Insurance Company assails the Judgment dated 13-02-2024, of the Learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gangtok, Sikkim (hereinafter, "MACT"), in MACT Case No.32 of 2022. The Respondent No.1-Claimant, father of the deceased, in an application filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter, "MV Act") sought compensation of a sum of rs 30,38,000/- (Rupees thirty lakhs and thirty eight thousand) only, on account of the death of his twenty-seven year old son, due to a motor vehicle accident on 21-06-2022. rs 15,00,000/- (Rupees fifteen lakhs) only, was granted against the said claim by the MACT. The Appellant is aggrieved by the fact that despite the insuredRespondent No.2 herein, having opted out of the "compulsory personal accident" (CPA) and not paid the premium thereof, the amount of rs 15,00,000/- (Rupees fifteen lakhs) only, was erroneously granted by the MACT, contrary to the terms of the insurance policy, the MACT having reasoned that the driver, since deceased, had stepped into the shoes of the owner and thus entitled to the compulsory PA cover.

2. The Appellant, before this Court, urged that, as Respondent No.2 the owner of the vehicle, had opted out of the CPA coverage of the insurance policy, the liability of the Appellant to compensate did not arise. Drawing strength from the decision in Ramkhiladi and Another vs. United India Insurance Company and Another1 and Dhanraj vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Another2 , it was contended that as the deceased son, stepped into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle Respondent No.2, his mother, the Respondent No.1 was disentitled to the compensation claimed.

3. The Respondent No.1, on the other hand, submitted that the issue of Respondent No.2 opting out from the personal accident cover was never agitated before the MACT and is being raised for the first time in Appeal. That, the policy is a "Private Car Package Policy" and covers all persons travelling in the vehicle, including the driver of the vehicle. That, there is no error in the finding of the MACT granting rs 15,00,000/- (Rupees fifteen lakhs) only, to the Respondent No.1.

The rest of the document can be viewed at https://hcs.gov.in/hcs/hg_orders/201300000032024_9.pdf

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.