Totla, J. - (1.) IN an accident occurring on 27.7.2006 between car No. RJ 27-IC 0256 and tractor No. RJ 19-RA 0717, the respondent No. 1 who happens to be son of the car owner was injured.
(2.) LEARNED Tribunal accepting claim awarded compensation of Rs. 92,000 pay- able by appellant car insurer, car owner and tractor driver-cum-owner. Insurer questions his liability. The only question argued and involved is whether a person who happens to be son of owner of private vehicle and not driving the vehicle which was insured for Act only liability is entitled for reimbursement from the insurer of that vehicle. In other words, whether the insurer under the Act Only Policy is liable to reimburse for a person not driving the very vehicle insured. Learned counsel submits that admittedly injured was occupier in a car which was owned by his father and driven by another person and insurance being only to the mandatory extent of Act liability and driven by other person so the insurer is under no obligation to indemnify for such a person as he does not come in third person or any person. Argued that for injured's liability could have been of said other vehicle involved-tractor. In support of contentions cases cited are: Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajni Devi, 2008 ACJ 1441 (SC); New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sadanand Mukhi, 2009 ACJ 998 (SC); and Ningamma v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2009 ACJ 2020 (SC).
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondents submits that in the incident two vehicles are involved, therefore, claimant is third party, very much within ambit of any person as envisaged under section 147 and other provisions. Argued that not necessarily findings, if any, of no negligence of tractor driver/owner is correct and moreover the claim was allowed under section 163-A with no issue of negligence. Having a careful look at the record and judgment assailed considered arguments. Per claim petition admittedly the claimant with his mother and sister was travelling in the vehicle which was being driven by other person on straight road allegedly due to sudden turning of tractor accident occurred. And they all including car driver were injured. The claimant in deposition accepted car to be of his father and also appear that father also was in the car. The vehicle was insured as private car and for Act liability, policy certificate and schedule chart of premium is on record. Premium paid is Rs. 500 basic T.P., Rs. 100 for compulsory P.A. to owner-cum-driver and Rs. 25 for workmen compensation to one employee. Clearly it is only Act Liability Policy and is also specifically mentioned in the policy. Claimant was not driving the vehicle of owner and he occupying with other family members in capacity of family member of owner. The respondent claimant neither was driver nor workman, this being the position injured-claimant in no way fall within ambit of third person or any person in relation to the insurer of vehicle he was occupying and travelling in. The other questions raised regarding whether or not any negligence of tractor driver need not be gone into as claim is under section 163-A and appeal is only of insurer of the car above-mentioned and moreover when driver of this car and others are also alleged to be injured. ;