Dismissed

Royal Sundaram Alliance Insu Co. v. Udal Das and Others

Chhattisgarh HC5 Sept 2008MAC/1238/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Bench dismissed the insurer's appeal. Upholding the Tribunal's award, the court held that the insurer remained statutorily liable to pay compensation to the third party deceased despite the driver's lack of a valid licence, correctly applying the defence of breach of policy condition.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed; the order of pay and recover against the appellant insurer was upheld.

Royal Sundaram Alliance Insu Co. Vs… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Chhattisgarh HC (2008)

¶1

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSQARH: 81LASPUR

¶3

SingleBench: Hon'ble Shri Dillp teosaheb Deshmukh, J.
M.A.C.No. 1238 of 2007
Appellant Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance
ComfMny Limited, Firet Floor, Rachna
Trade Estate N.N.D.T. Crossing Ptot
No.64, Law Cotlege Road Poona
(Maharashtra) Through Branch
Manager, At present Situated at Vanijya
Bawan, Devendra Nagar Road, Raipur
(CG)
(NonApplicant No.3)
Versus
Respondents 1. Udal Das,S/o Bansht Das, ^ed about 26
yeare
2. Smt Urmila Bai, W/o Udat Das, aged
about25years
Both R/o Vitlage Barbaspur, Thana &
Tahsil-Kawardha, District KabinBiam
(CG) At present Betiakapa, Thana &
Tahsil Mungeli, District Bilaspur (CG)
(Claimants)
3. Palan Das, S/o Kawal Das Bharti
Satnami, aged about 24 yeare, Tractor
No.CG.08 C7257 and Trolley No.CGOB
C 7258 (Drtver)
4. Hukumchand, S/o Tutaram Mahilar®
aged about 45 years, Tractor No.CG 08
C 7257 and Troltey No. CG 08 C 7258
(Owner)
Both R/o Viltage Qiandalpur, Post
Ramhepur, P.S. & Tahsil Kawardha
District Kabifldham (CG)

¶4

Menwrandum of aopeal under SecUon 173 of the Motor Vehtetes Act~ 1W8 -

¶5

Present: Shri 8.S. Rajput, counsel for the appellant None appears for respondents No.1 &2 though served. Shri Ajit Sirgh, counsel for respondents No.3&4.

¶6

ORAL ORDER

¶7

(Passed^{on 05.09.2008)}

¶8

Heard finatly. This is an appeal bythe insurer.

¶9

(2) The appellant is aggrieved by the awarddated 3008/2007 passed by the IInd Additional Motor Accjdents Claims Tribunal (FTC), MungeU, Biiaspur (CG) (heneeforth^{theTribunal')inclaimscaseNo.52/2007,wherebyina} death case, compensatton of Rs.1,80,000/- was awarded to the clalmante^,

¶10

..^ff-^&i^SS, ^.--<^<

¶11

(3) Brieffacts are that on 03.05.2M6, aiupesh, a ohild aged 3 years was crushed underneath the truck bearing No.CG-08 7257 and a trolley attached to it bearing No. OG-08 7258 (henceforth the tractor and troltey) driven by the respondent No.3, owned by respondent No.4 and insured by the appeHant. These facts are not disputed in this appeal.

¶12

(4) Leamed counsel for the appellant argued that in view of the flndir^ recorded by the Tribunal that tlie appellanyinsurer had satlsfactonly proved its defence under Sedion 149 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, it ought not to have passed an order of 'pay and recover' against the appellartflnsurer.

¶13

(5) On the other hand, learned counsel fbr the respondents No.3 & 4 argued in support ofthe impugned award.

¶14

(6) Before the Tribunal, the appeltant/insurar took the defence that tha driver of the tractor and trolley did not possess a valid and efiective driving licence.

¶15

(7) The Tribunal recorded a findn^ in para 15 of th9 award that the respondent No.3/driver did not possess any licence on the date of awdent. The Tribunal hekl that the insurer had satisfactorily proved bregKh of po\w/ condition. While awarding eompensation of Rs.1,80.000/-, the Tribunal passed an order of 'pay and recover' against the appellantflnsurer.

¶16

¶17

(8) Having conskjered the rival submissions, 1 am of the considered opinion that this appeat has no merit. In view of the admitted facts and the finding recordecf by the Tribunal that the driver of the tractor and trolley did not possess any licence, the Tribunal rightly recorded a findir^ that the insurer had satisfactorily proved the defence of breach of policy oondition taken by the insurer under Section 1 49 (2) of the Motor Vehicl^ Act. In view of the fact that the deceased was a third party and the appellant/insurer was statutorily liable to pay oompensation, the Tribunal has, in my considered 'pay opinion, rightly passed an order of and recover' against the appellant/insurer as held by this Courtih United India Inajrance Ccimpany Limited. Bi/asour Vs. KunibitKiri Mi^ira andoffiers 2008 L.T. (CG) 91.

¶18

(9) In the result, the appeal being devoid of any merit is dismlssed.

¶19

Priya

¶20

Sd/\ Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh r Judge

Royal Sundaram Alliance Insu Co. v. Udal Das and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Royal Sundaram Alliance Insu Co. v. Udal Das and 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

Dhan Singh Chandan and Anr. Vs Murharam and Ors.

Smt. Uttara Vs Abubakar Khan

Hiraram Sanwra Vs State of Chhattisgarh

The New India Assurnace Co. Ltd. Vs Gandhi Ram Nishad and Others

The Employer Vs Smt. Deepanjali Sahu

Narendra Sao Dewangan Vs Khammanlal