Dismissed

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Shyamabai and 6 Others

Allahabad HC10 Feb 2020FAFO/2386/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed an appeal against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award. Accepting the insurer's admission that extra premium was charged, the court upheld the Tribunal's decision on liability amount, directing the insurer to pay interest at 7% from the date of claim lodging.

What did the court decide?

Discharge the appeal; direct the insurer to pay interest at 7% from the date of lodging the claim till actual payment.

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Shyamabai… — Execution and Attachment | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 53

¶2

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2386 of 2017

¶3

Appellant :- United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Respondent :- Smt. Shyamabai And 6 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Pankaj Rai Counsel for Respondent :- Om Prakash Tripathi,Greesh Kumar Malviya

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Pankaj Rai, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Om Prakash Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 and Sri S.K. Malviya, learned counsel for the respondent nos.2/1, 2/2 and 2/3. None for the respondent nos.3 and 4.

¶6

This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company which had insured the Bus M.P.-20 P.A.0339 owned by respondent no.1, who died during the pendency of the case and by the award passed in M.A.C.P. No.211 of 2012 on 21.04.2017 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court No.6, Jhansi whereby learned Tribunal has directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,44,639/-.

¶7

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in the first round of litigation when Insurance Company had filed F.A.F.O. No.1912 of 2014 then it was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 19.10.2016. It had remanded the case on a specific ground that insurer-appellant had raised an issue that their liability towards damage of property of a third party was restricted to Rs.6000/- in terms of the provisions contained in Section 147(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company had questioned the valuation of the vehicle at Rs.5,44,639/- and though the Tribunal recorded a finding that vehicle was purchased on 29.08.2011 and had met with an accident on 06.10.2011 when offending vehicle insured with the present appellant namely the

¶8

truck bearing Registration No.M.P. 20 P.A. 0339 but claimant could not have claimed more than Rs.6000/- from the insurer of the Insurance Company.

¶9

While remanding the matter Division Bench of this Court expressed its opinion that Tribunal had failed to consider the terms of policy whether there was any additional premium paid or not. It also observed that the Tribunal had not taken into consideration provisions contained in Section 147(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It has not even considered policy whether there was any additional premium paid or not by the Owner of the Truck whose insurance was taken by the appellant.

¶10

He also disputes the rate of interest which was awarded by the Claims Tribunal in the earlier round of litigation @ Rs.12.20%. Learned counsel for the appellant vehementally argues that no additional premium was charged and, therefore, in terms of the provisions contained in Section 147(2)(b) maximum liability of the Insurance Company towards the third party damage to the property was restricted to Rs.6000/- and no more amount could have been demanded or awarded against the insurer of the offending vehicle.

¶11

Learned counsel for the claimants, on the other hand, has drawn attention of this Court to the policy which was taken for the offending vehicle i.e. the truck which had caused accident to the 'Tata Indica' owned by the claimants in which, there is a specific mention of third party-basic premium to the tune of Rs.3160/-. It is submitted that since extra premium was charged by the Insurance Company as has been admitted by their deponent during cross examination, therefore, the third party liability could not have been restricted to Rs.6000/-.

¶12

Learned counsel for the appellant after arguing at length concedes to the facts that their own Officer during cross

¶13

examination had admitted before the learned Tribunal that the Insurance Company had charged extra premium and had not restricted the third party liability to the statutory limit of Rs.6000/- as is provided in the Motor Vehicles Act.

¶14

In view of such admission, this issue of restricting the third party coverage to Rs.6000/- gets answered and has been rightly answered by the learned Claims Tribunal when matter was remanded to it vide award dated 21.04.2017.

¶15

As far as issue of interest is concerned, the Claims Tribunal on remand has not awarded any interest.

¶16

However, in the interest of justice, this Court while hearing the first appeal from orders can award interest though, no counter claim /cross examination /appeal has been filed by the claimants and, therefore, it is directed that this claim amount shall carry interest @ 7% from the date of lodging of the claim with the Insurance Company till the date of actual payment. Though, no other issue has been raised before us and, therefore, appeal being devoid of merit deserves to fail and is dismissed with the aforesaid modification/direction to pay interest @ 7% which learned Tribunal had erred in not awarding in favour of the claimant.

¶17

Order Date :- 10.2.2020 Ashutosh

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Shyamabai and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Shyamabai and 6 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

U.P.S.R.T.C. Thru Regional Mananger Vs Dilip Kumar @ Munna and Another

Malkha and 3 Others Vs Indrajeet and 18 Others

Devdut Deceased and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Ramadhin Vs Braj Bahadur and 2 Others

Dayal Swaroop Kulshretha in the Matter of the Estate of Late Smt. Vidhulata Kulshreshta and Another Vs Smt. Priya and Another

Mohammad Altaf Vs Zahoor Ahmad and 10 Ors.