Dismissed

N.I.A. Co. v. Smt. Asha Devi

Allahabad HC10 Dec 2021FAFO/348/1992

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Appellant, an insurance company, appealed against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarding compensation for a fatal accident. The court held the accident was caused by negligent driving without a valid license in a non-taxi vehicle. It affirmed the Tribunal's liability and the reasonableness of the compensation amount.

What did the court decide?

The appeal filed by the insurance company was dismissed, upholding the Tribunal's award of compensation.

N.I.A. Co. Vs Smt. Asha Devi — Insurance | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 21

¶2

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 348 of 1992

¶3

Appellant :- N.I.A. Co. Respondent :- Smt. Asha Devi Counsel for Appellant :- Shishir Kumar,Nagendra Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- Anil Kumar Sharma,Kapil Kumar

¶4

Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.

¶5

This appeal has been filed under section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to 'Act, 1988') by New India Assurance Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as "Insurance Company"), being aggrieved by judgment and decree dated 19.12.1991 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ IVth Additional District Judge, Etawah, in Motor Accident Claims Case No.183 of 1990 whereby Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,23,000/-.

¶6

The brief facts of the present case are that on 23.4.1990 at about 6:30 p.m., deceased- Ramesh Chandra @ Sultan Singh was coming to his village on his bicycle. He was being followed by Radhey Shyam Kalnay Singh and Shiv Narain on their separate Bicycle.When they reached, at a distance of about 200 paces from Vrishna Talkies Qasha Jaswant Nagar to Wards Etawah on Mughal Road, Jeep No. MWN-2618 came from behind in a very fast speed and the said jeep was being driven in a negligent manner by its driver with out blowing horn and it dashed against Ramesh Chandra @ Sultan Singh. Deceased suffered grave injuries due to said accident and died during treatment.

¶7

The grounds urged are that the petition was not maintainable as the accident had taken place due to the negligent driving of the driver of the jeep.

¶8

It is submitted by ld counsel that from the written statement filed by the appellant, it was clear that the driver was not having valid driving licence at the time of accident and, therefore, there was breach of policy condition. The vehicle was not registered as Taxi and, therefore, the Insurance Company was not liable to pay any compensation.

¶9

The compensation awarded of Rs.20,000/- by the Tribunal under the head of pain shock suffering is illegal which did not have jurisdiction to grant.

¶10

From the record, deceased was engaged in the profession of preparing sweet. He was earning Rs.600/- per month only. It is submitted that his income has been considered by the tribunal is much on the higher side and is based on imaginary calculation.

¶11

Heaving heard Sri Nagendra Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Anil Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for respondent.

¶12

This appeal was filed under Section 140 read with 166 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 as it was a claim petition for the death of the sole bread-winner of the family.

¶13

The appellant also filed its objection to the claim petition and the said was of her denial. The Tribunal framed about seven issues which were decided in favour of the claimant.

¶14

Going through the threadbare about issue nos. 1 to 5, they were interconnected. The accident is not in dispute. the time and place are also not in dispute. The appellant examined two witnesses so as to bring whom the factum of the accident having taken place.

¶15

The Tribunal held in favour of the claimant and, therefore, it cannot be said that issue nos. 1 to 5 returned or decided are bad in eyes of law and the insurance company was held liable. As far as issue no.4 is concerned, the Tribunal had held on the judgment of Rajasthan State Co-Operative Dairy federation versus Brij Mohan Lal and others, 1990 ACJ 1118, Savitri and others Versus Luxmi Chandra and others, 1988 ACJ 909 and Digbijai Tiwari Versus Ramesh Prasad Pathak and other, 1987 ACJ 795.

¶16

This takes this Court to the issue of permanent compensation under issue no.6 reads as follows:

¶17

"To what amount of compensation if any, the petitioners are entitled and from which of the O.P.S."

¶18

Having considered this fact, it cannot be said that the issue no. 1 to 5 have been decided against the insurance company or there is any perversity. The fact that the claimants have proved the income of Rs.600/- per month and Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd and granted Rs.500/- per month for the family. Legal heirs use to give Rs.100/- and, therefore, the calculation of Rs.2,40,000/- even if we consider the judgment of the Tribunal which has again deducted 20% namely, thereafter, has granted Rs.1,90,000/-.

¶19

The deceased was admitted in hospital for some days, 20% is added in peculiar facts. Thus, the amount awarded is admissible, therefore, award being sustainable. This Court does not interfere with the well reasoned award passed by the Tribunal.

¶20

In view of the above, this appeal is dismissed. Order Date :- 10.12.2021 Mukesh

N.I.A. Co. v. Smt. Asha Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.I.A. Co. v. Smt. Asha Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bharat Prasad Vs Ram Karan

Bharat Bansal Vs Ram Karan

Lallo and Another Vs Parsadi and Others

Vidya Sagar Pandey Vs Ram Chandra Ji Mahraj

Smt. Mahroophi Devi Vs Anil Kumar

Satywan and Others Vs Jai Nath Singh and Others