Dismissed

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Kunti Devi and 3 Others

Allahabad HC7 Dec 2022FAFO/2213/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge's appeal against a motor accident compensation award is dismissed. The court held that the unproduced and unproved investigator report could not support the appellant's case regarding route permit violation or constitute a fundamental breach.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is dismissed. The award of compensation by the Tribunal remains valid.

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Kunti Devi and 3… — Motor Accident Claims | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 7

¶2

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2213 of 2016

¶3

Appellant :- Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Respondent :- Smt. Kunti Devi And 3 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Ashok Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- Radhey Shyam Yadav,Kripa Shankar,Rajeev Singh,Vivek Ratan Agrawal,Yatindra

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Ashok Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Yatindra, learned counsel assisted by Shri Ankaj Kumar Pal, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶6

This appeal arises out of the judgment and award dated 31.03.2016 made by the learned M.A.C.T./Additional District Judge, Court No.19, Allahabad in C.P.No.162 of 2010 (Smt. Kunti Devi v. M/s Indian Farmers Fertilizer Cooperative and others). The learned Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.97,610/to the claimant/respondent No.1 for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident.

¶7

Only ground on which the insurance company has assailed the award is that the insured vehicle was driven outside of the route permit area. To establish the violation of the route permit reliance is placed upon two documents, namely, the investigator/surveyor report and the report of RTO. According to the appellant, the surveyor engaged

¶8

by the insurance company had visited the site of the accident and had found that the same was outside of the route permit area.

¶9

I see merit in the submission of Shri Yatindra, learned counsel assisted by Shri Pankaj Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent-vehicle owner that the surveyor was never produced as a witness, and the report was not proved in accordance with law. The respondent-vehicle owner did not have an opportunity to cross examine the author of the investigator/summary report.

¶10

The failure to prove the report and inability to produce the author of the survey report goes to the root of admissibility of the said report. The insurance company for reasons best known shied away from producing its best evidence.

¶11

In this wake, no reliance would be placed on the aforesaid report by the insurance company to support their case. The learned tribunal was led into error by pivoting its findings on the surveyor report and finding against the appellant. Further, this is not a fundamental breach of the insurance policy which would shift the liability on the owner.

¶12

The appeal is dismissed.

¶13

Order Date :- 7.12.2022 Ashish Tripathi

¶14

Digitally signed by :- ASHISH NAYAN TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Kunti Devi and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Kunti Devi and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rakesh Kumar and Another Vs the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and 2 Others

Jitendra Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Angoori Devi and Others Vs Collector Agra and Others

Mukesh Chandra Vs Mohammad Ovais Iqbal Khan and 7 Others

Future Generali India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Sunita and 7 Others

Karan Maurya and 2 Others Vs Mohd. Imran and 2 Others