Dismissed

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Meera Kumari and Others

Allahabad HC31 Jan 2018FAFO/314/1998

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Insurance Company appealed against a compensation award, alleging breach of policy conditions due to the driver lacking a proper license and questioning the reliability of an eye-witness. The court found the driver's license status unproven and held the appeal devoid of merits.

What did the court decide?

The First Appeal was dismissed as being devoid of merits; the record was sent back to the Tribunal.

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Meera Kumari and Others — Insurance | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 27

¶2

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 314 of 1998

¶3

Appellant :- The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Respondent :- Smt. Meera Kumari & Others Counsel for Appellant :- S.D. Pathak,Dinesh Pathak Counsel for Respondent :- B.R.Singh,Alkesh Singh Chauhan,K.B.Dixit

¶4

Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.

¶5

This First Appeal From Order has been filed under section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to 'Act, 1988') by The New India Assurance Company Ltd., being aggrieved by order dated 31.1.1998 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Ist Additional District Judge, Agra MACT No.269 of 1993.

¶6

By way of this appeal the Insurance Company has felt aggrieved by the judgment on several ground urged and before adverting to the facts the ground of challenges which will be appreciated in the factual background are spelt out namely that the driver of the offending vehicle who has been held to be responsible for accident was not having proper driving licence and licnece which were produced was proved not to be issued by the Regional Transport Authority Office which the claimants claimed that the same was issued with ... that PW-1 the widow of the deceased policemen was not an eye witness, despite that her testimony has been believed and exorbitant award is passed.

¶7

Per contra it is submitted by Sri Alkesh Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for respondent that PW-1 was an eye witness and she has witnessed the accident and, therefore, it is submitted that the Tribunal did not granted compensation it was not just compensation for the death of the policeman.

¶8

Heaving heard Sri Dinesh Pathak, learned counsel for

¶9

appellant and contended that the driver did not have proper driving licence at the time of accident which has been proved by oral testimony of the RTO Officer who has been examined by the Insurance Company however three things emerges, (i) that the Officer of RTO who has been examined as DW-1 had not come with record of the year when the accident took place which he had admitted in her cross examination as reverted in the judgment passed by Tribunal, secondary, a confusion was sought to be created amongst name of the driver which has also been brushed aside by Tribunal by giving cogent reason that the Insurance Company has not proved by leading any evidence that the driver did not have any driving licence on the date of accident i.e. 29.5.1993 and hence there was no breach of policy condition. It has not also been proved that the Insurance Company can avoid its liability only if the factual data is proved that the owner gave the vehicle to a person fully being aware that the driver had no driving licence.

¶10

In view of the above I am unable to ascribe to the submission of Sri Dinesh Pathak that there is breach of policy condition and the Insurance Company can avoid the same under Section 147 read with 149 of Act, 1988.

¶11

I am afraid having not proved that the driver did not have proper driving licence, the Insurance Company cannot be exonerated of its liability to indemnify the owner as there is no breach of contract.

¶12

As far as question of no eye witness, PW-1 being an eye witness. The Tribunal by cogent evidence has held that the accident was root cause of death of the deceased and hence whether PW-1 was an eye witness or not pales into insignificance. As far as quantum is concerned, as there is no cross objection filed. I do not entertain the submission of Sri

¶13

Alkesh Singh Chauhan for enhancing the compensation in this appeal.

¶14

Appeal is devoid of merits and is dismissed. Record, if any, be sent back to the Tribunal.

¶15

Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

¶16

Order Date :- 31.1.2018 Mukesh

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Meera Kumari and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Meera Kumari and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

National Insurance Co. Ltd. through Admn. Officer Vs Khem Karan and Others

M/S Hari Om Iron Foundry Vs Union of India

Nagar Mahapalika through Administrator Vs Satyaveer Singh

Chhabi Lal and Others Vs Deshpat

Superintendent Railway Mail Service Vs the Workmen Compensation and Others

Ram Ashrey and Others Vs M/S Amit Deep Motors and Another