Anndibai and ors. Vs. Geeta Devi and ors.

.....be liable for any bodily injury or death of a third party in an accident unless the liability is fastened on the insurer under the provisions of section 147 of the act or under the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance. hence, the mere fact that a passenger is a third party would not fasten liability on the insurer unless such liability arises under section 147 of the act or under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. an employee is a third party inasmuch as he is not a party to the insurance policy. but merely because an employee is a third party, the insurance company would not be liable to compensate in case such employee suffers bodily injury or dies in an accident in which the motor vehicle is involved unless section 147 of the act fixes such liability on the insured or unless the terms and conditions of the contract of insurance fixes liability on the insurer. section 147 (1)(b) of the act provides that in order to comply with the requirements of chapter xi of the act, a policy of insurance must be a policy which insures the person or classes of persons specified in the policy to the extent specified in sub-section (2) against the liabilities mentioned in clauses (i) and (ii) thereunder. even if an employee is a passenger or a person travelling in a motor vehicle which is insured as per the requirements of sub-section (1) of section 147 of the act, the insurer will not be liable to cover any liability in respect of death or bodily injury of such employee unless such employee falls in one of the categories mentioned in sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c)of clause (i) of the proviso to sub-section (1)of section 147 of the act and further in cases where such employees fall under categories mentioned in sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c) of clause (i) of the proviso to sub-section (1`) of section 147 of the act, the insurer is liable only for the liability under the workmens compensation act, 1923. [national insurance co. ltd. v sarvanlal, 2004 (4)..........6.5.1982 made by the illrd additional motor accidents claims tribunal, indore in claim case no. 45 of 1981, whereby the learned tribunal has awarded compensation of rs. 12,500/- in respect of the death of kundan lal verma by motor accident.2. the facts giving rise to this appeal, briefly stated, are as follows:on 23.12.1980 at about 1.00 p.m. while the respondent no. 2 was driving the offending truck-tanker in snehlataganj, indore, there was a collision between the truck-tanker and the cyclist kundan lal who was run over by the truck-tanker died on the spot. 3. on a claim petition having been filed by the claimants against the owner, driver and the insurer in respect of the truck-tanker in question, the learned tribunal by the impugned award awarded rs. 12,500/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of the claim petition till realisation. being aggrieved by the inadequacy of compensation awarded, the claimants have filed this appeal.4. the learned counsel for the claimants-appellants has submitted that the learned tribunal estimated the total value of annual dependency to which the claimants were held entitled as rs. 30,600/- but the learned tribunal committed an error in deducting the amount of family pension payable on account of the death of the deceased. learned counsel placed reliance on a full bench decision of this court in kashiram mathur v. sardar rajendra singh 1983 acj 152 (mp), in support of his submission that no deduction from the amount of compensation payable in respect of the death of the deceased in motor accident is permissible except the amount of ex gratia payment received by the claimants. as such, the family pension payable to the surviving claimants is not liable to be deducted from the sum of rs. 30,600/- which has been estimated by the learned tribunal as the value of dependency to which the claimants are entitled.5. learned counsel for the appellants-claimants has further submitted that the.....