Andhra Pradesh High Court: Policy Holder’s Family Members Not Protected In Third Party Insurance Claims| Motor Vehicle Accident

The Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case Bandarla Naveen Kumar v. Balaji Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd & Anr observed and has held that it is the owner of the offending vehicle alone who is liable to compensate the claimant for loss due to accident.
The bench headed by Justice V Gopala Krishna Rao of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case observed that the son of the owner of offending vehicle is not a third party and the same cannot be compensated by insurance company under the third-party insurance claims.
In the present case, the claimant was engaged as the cleaner of a lorry and due to rash driving by the lorry driver, thus, it met with an accident and the petitioner sustained severe injuries.
The claim petition was filed by the petitioner for compensation and the costs under the Motor Vehicle Act against the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle.
Therefore, the Tribunal in the case observed and has allowed the part compensation which needs to be paid by the owner of the offending vehicle and the claim petition filed against the Insurance company was dismissed by the court and the said claimant being aggrieved by the award, preferred the instant appeal.
The court in the case observed that it was seen that the petitioner being the son of the owner of the lorry. Moreover, the insurance policy shows that the risk of only third party is covered and son of the owner cannot be brought under the ambit of ‘third party.’ Therefore, the insurance company relied on the decision of Supreme Court in the case New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sadanand Mukhi, wherein the claimant is not the third party in relation to Insurance company and that the liability of the Insurance company to compensate the said claimant does not arise.
It has been held by the Apex Court in the case United India Insurance Company Limited v. Om Prakash, wherein the court held that the claimant in all the three original petitions are not third parties either under the Act or under the terms and conditions of the policy and the Tribunal below has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim petitions moved by them and that the appellant Insurance company is not liable to pay compensation to the claimants.
However, the petitioner being the son of the owner of vehicle, he cannot be considered as a third party and, thus, the Insurance company cannot be fastened the liability.
It has also been held by the said court that the owner of the offending vehicle alone who is in the case liable to compensate the claimant for loss due to accident.
Accordingly, the court dismissed the appeal.