DHANRAJ versus NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ANR.

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 711 · Decided: 24-09-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.N. VARIAVA · Disposal: Leave Granted & Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

• 
DHANRAJ 
A 
v. 
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ANR. 
SEPTEMBER 24, 2004 
[S.N. VARIAVA AND A.K. MATHUR, JJ.] 
B 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988-Section 147-Motor Accident-Injury to 
owner of vehicle-Comprehensive policy-Claim of owner allowed by Courts 
below-On appeal, held: Comprehensive policy would not cover the risk of 
the injury of the owner unless there is personal accident insurance. 
c 
In a motor accident appellant-owner of the vehicle alongwith other 
passengers got injured. Owner had a comprehensive policy. Regarding 
claim of the owner, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal held the driver 
responsible for the accident and directed the driver and the Insurance 
Company to pay compensation to him. Appeal of Insurance Company D 
was allowed by High Court holding that Insurance Company was not 
liable to pay compensation to the owner. 
In appeal to this Court appellant contended that the premium paid 
under "own damage" was for covering personal injury. Hence, he was 
entitled for compensation. 
E 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: In view of Section 147 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, an 
insurance policy covers the liability incurred by the insured in respect 
of death of or bodily injury to any person (including an owner of the 
F 
goods or his authorized representative) carried in the vehicle or damage 
to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of 
the vehicle. Section 147 does not require an Insurance Company to 
assume risk for death or bodily injury to the owner of the vehicle. 
(714-H; 715-A] 
G 
2. In the present case, it has not been shown that the policy covered 
any risk for injury to the owner himself. It cannot be said that the 
premium paid under the heading "Own damage" is for covering liability 
-
towards personal injury. Under the heading "Own damage", the words 
"premium on vehicle and non-electrical accessories" appear. It is thus. H 
711 
A 
712 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
clear that this premium is towards damage to the vehicle and not for 
injury to the person of the owner. An owner of a vehicle can only claim 
provided a personal accident insurance has been taken out. In this case, 
there is no such insurance. (715-C, DJ 
B 
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sunita Rathi and Ors., (1998) ACJ 121, 
referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 6270-6271 
of 2004. 
C 
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.7.2003 of the Madhya Pradesh 
D 
High Court in Misc. A. No. 1712 of 2002. 
Sushil Kumar Jain, Ms. Pratibha Jain, Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Ram Niwas 
A.P. Dhamija and H.D. Thanvi for the Appellant. 
K.L. Nandwani, Sameer Nandwani, S.K. Mishra and Debasis Misra for 
the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
E 
S. N. V ARIA VA, J. : Special leave granted. 
Heard parties. 
These Appeals arise out of a Judgment of the High Court of Madhya 
F 
Pradesh dated 21st July 2003. 
G 
H 
Briefly stated the facts are as follows. 
On 26th August 2000, the Appellant along with certain other persons 
was traveling in his own Jeep. Around 6.30 A.M. the Jeep met with an 
accident. In the accident, the Appellant as well as the other passengers 
received injuries. A number of Claim Petitions came to be filed. The 
Appellant also filed a Claim Petition. 
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) held the Driver of th,e 
Jeep responsible for the accident. In all the Claim Petitions filed by the other 
-
DHANRAJ v. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. [VARIAVA, J.] 
713 
passengers MACT directed that the Appellant (as the owner) as well as the 
A 
Driver and Insurance Company were liable to pay compensation. In these 
Appeals, we are not concerned with those Petitions and the Orders thereon. 
In the Claim Petition filed by the Petitioner, the Motor Accident 
Claims Tribunal directed the driver and the Insurance Company to pay 
B 
compensation to the Petitioner. The Insurance Company filed an Appeal. 
That Appeal has been allowed by the impugned Judgment. It has been held 
that as the Petitioner was the owner of the vehicle the Insurance Company 
is not liable to pay him any compensation. 
We have seen the Policy. It is a comprehensive policy. The question 
that arises is whether a comprehensive Policy would cover the risk of injury 
to the owner of the vehicle also. Section 14 7 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 
reads as follows:-
"147. Requirements of policies and limits of liability.-(1) In order 
to comply with the requirements of this Chapter, a pol
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.