Allowed

Prakash Chandra v. Kashinath and 9 Others

Allahabad HC6 Jan 2021FAFO/78/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed an appeal by the vehicle owner challenging Motor Accident Claims Tribunal liability. The appellant argued that lack of permit exonerated the insurer for a bus under contract with U.P.S.R.T.C. Relying on Supreme Court precedent and State amendments allowing contract carriage without permits, the court held that no permit was needed. Consequently, the insurer's liability could not

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed; owner, U.P.S.R.T.C., and Insurance Company jointly and severally liable; liberty granted to recover deposited amount.

Prakash Chandra Vs Kashinath and 9 Others — Motor Accident Claims | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 1

¶2

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 78 of 2018 Appellant :- Prakash Chandra Respondent :- Kashinath And 9 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Karunesh Narayan Tripathi,Satya Deo Ojha Counsel for Respondent :- Amrendra Nath Rai,Arun Kumar Mishra,Sanjay Singh,Sunil Kumar Misra

¶3

Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.

¶4

Heard Sri Satya Deo Ojha, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Sanjay Singh, learned counsel for the claimants and the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶5

This appeal has been filed by the owner of the offending vehicle being aggrieved of the award dated 22.9.2017 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Additional District Judge, Court No. 5, Shahjahanpur in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 180 of 2015 on the sole ground that the bus in question bearing registration no. UP270/3038 was used as a contract carriage and was under contract with the U.P.S.R.T.C., therefore merely non availability of permit will not be a ground on which learned claims Tribunal has exonerated the Insurance Company and has fixed the liability to pay compensation on owner of the offending vehicle.

¶6

In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon a judgment of the High Court in the case of Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Kulsum as reported in 2011(8) SCC 142 .

¶7

Sri S.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the U.P.S.R.T.C. submits that once the vehicle was run as a contract carriage under agreement with U.P.S.R.T.C., then as per law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Managing Director, K.S.R.T.C. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & others in Civil Appeal No. 6641 of 2010 decided on 27.10.2015, wherein in paragraph 31 reference has been made in case of Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (supra) where vehicle was given on hire by owner of the vehicle to U.P.S.R.T.C. with existing running insurance policy, it was held that U.P.S.R.T.C. have became the owner of the vehicle during the specified period and vehicle having been insured at the instance of the original owner, it would be deemed that vehicle was transferred along with insurance policy to U.P.S.R.T.C. The insurer cannot escape the liability to pay the compensation. The appeal preferred by U.P.S.R.T.C. was allowed.

¶8

Sri S.K. Mishra, submits that as per the State amendment in Section 103 whereby after sub-section (1), sub-section(1A) have been added and which reads as under:-

¶9

There is no need for permit as State transport undertaking has been authorised to operate on any route as state carriage under any permit issues, therefore to such undertaking under subsection (1), any vehicle placed at the disposal and under the control of such undertaking by the owner of such vehicle under any arrangement entered into between such owner and the undertaking for the use of said vehicle by the undertaking.

¶10

Reading this provision it is submitted that no permit is required to ply bus under agreement between owner of the bus and the U.P.S.R.T.C., therefore law laid down in the case of Amrit Pal Singh & another Vs. Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited & others 2018 (7) SCC 558 will not come in the way of discharging liability of the Insurance Company.

¶11

Sri Arun Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company fairly admits that the submissions made by Sri S.K. Mishra are not rebuttable and once it is admitted by U.P.S.R.T.C. that the offending bus was plied under agreement with the U.P.S.R.T.C., then there was not need for permit to ply such bus.

¶12

In view of the such submissions and as per law laid down by Supreme Court in the case of Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (supra) appeal deserves to be allowed and is allowed.

¶13

It is directed that owner of the bus, U.P.S.R.T.C. and the Insurance Company are jointly and severely liability to compensate the claimants.

¶14

At this stage, Sri S.D. Ojha submits that in compliance of the interim order, owner had deposited a sum of Rs. 25000/- which if disbursed, then the owner of the bus will be entitled to recover the same from the Insurance Company.

¶15

Accordingly, appellant is granted liberty to recover the amount already paid by him to the claimants in accordance with law.

¶16

Order Date :- 6.1.2021 Arif

Prakash Chandra v. Kashinath and 9 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakash Chandra v. Kashinath and 9 Others

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

N.I.A. Co. Ltd. Vs Pratibha Devi

Smt.Kusum Agnihotri and Another Vs Konald Bality and 2 Others

Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Akal and 4 Others

Sunil Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

U.P.S.R.T.C. Vs Bir Bahadur Singh and Others

Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs ajay pal singh and 2 others