Single Judge appellate proceedings dismissing an appeal against an award by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The court held the driver was guilty of negligent driving based on an admitted challan and rejected the insurance liability plea for lack of pleading.
Appeal dismissed, award of Rs. 1,17,000 by the Tribunal stands upheld.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
ww‘ WU!” lllmWHHHHlHlH
431 OB
\§ /
IN TEE' HIGH COW}. $1? JUDICATUBEAT JABALPUR MISé. Appeal NoJfffg /99
kppellants :-”ShiVprasaa Shandrakar S/o Sukul Prasad /N°n‘a¥plicant nesident of JamgaoMM) District Burg x No. 2 8:1 ‘2. NiruLal 3/0 Narsingh PrasadCasteChandrk‘a resident of JamgaonU’i) District Durg Ver3n3 Respcndents‘ =— Shekh Abdul Salam S/o Moha’rrmed Rafiq, aged /A9Plicant g 4O Yea&s resident ofVillage Raipur Naka & Non-Applican Rajeevanaga: in from: of Hanuman Temple no. 3 ’Jz'ahseel & District Burg Q\qc\ 2. Ema Company Sambhagiya Prbhandhak ww“ National Insurance Company Limited Supe1a~ Chm]: Bhilai District Burg (24.9. ) \zxo’N?“- r Appm UNDER sscmm 173 m Moéoa VEHIcmism 1988 Being aggrieved by the award aated £3 24/12/93 passed by Shri ELK. Pandey 4th Motoxgalehicle Claim Tribunal Durg in claim case no. m/95/;he appellants beg to prefer this: appeal on the £ollowing facts and grounds :v
FACTS ...
aiGHCOQRTOFcHHATT§SGARHA?“£§LI§$PL§R
Misc. Aggeai No‘ 1398 OF 1999
Shivprasad Chandrakar and another
Versus
RES§ONDENTS APPLICANT & NON-AP?LE€AN“§’ N63
Shaikh Abdui Saiam and another.
gPPEALUNDERSECTIONW3OFTHEMOTGRVEHigLE‘ Af‘T G06 Hui, (Adv.
i$inqie Bench: Hon“b£e Mr. NKK. Aqarwal. J.‘1
Presena : ShriAtusPandey,ccunseifortne appeiéants. Nana for the re'apandents.
ORAL 0§Q§3ER (9&55edan1!? day sf Juiy, 291$}
Chanenge is tc the award dated 24-32-1398 passed by Fourth Aaditionai Motor Acciden? Ciaims T‘rEbunaE, Burg (for short ‘the Trib‘unaz) in Ciam Case No.3i/1Q95 whereby and whereuneer an amcunt of Rs.1,17,000i— has been awareed hokiéng appe§iante Habie for iis payment.
2“ Facts of the case in brief are as under:
On 30—04-1995, coiiusion took piece between Tempo bearrng registration No. MP. 243/1208 and Jeep bearing registration No. M.P.'20-BI4155 as a result of which respendent N0.1/ciaimant sustained muitipie serious injuries and become permanentlydisabied.
r 3. The ciaimant preferred an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short‘tne Act’) claiming Rs.3,(§0,00()/— as compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the said accident against the appeiiants as weii as responoent. No.2/Insurance Company.
@
- The claimant in para 3 of the claim peiitionhas averred that he was slowly and cautiousiy drmng the Tempo and was gcingIromViiiage Funda to Viiiage Tarra At this moment the ofiending Jeep came from opposne direction wimch was being driven by the Driver Niruiai rashiy and negligentiy dashed the Tempo and as a resuit of which the claimant sustained multiple inguries. 5. The appellants have filed their reply in which they have denied that the Driver Nirulai was negligent in driving the Jeep.
it was further pleaded that the ciaimant himself driving the Tempo raehiy and negligently without proper papers and permit. 6. Learned Tribunal on close scrutiny of the evidence led material placed and submrssrons made held the driver of offending vehicle Jeep was driVing rashly and negligently as a result of which the ciatmant sustained multiple injuries, assessed the compensation and awarded Rs.1,11,000/— as compensation to the claimant against the appellants.
’F. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that lt has not been established by the claimant that he was having licence to drive the Tempo at the time of accident, also not established that the tempo was insured and, therefore, learned Tribunal ought to have held the claimant also responsible tor the cause of accident.
\ 1
. u-¢
wibmssions made by the l earned counsel appearing for the rib appetlants that driver of tempo also contuted to the cause of acdent.ci tn View of above, the contention riseda by the teamed counset appearing for the appeiantsi being sans merit, is rejected. 11. Learned counsei for the appeiiants Shri Atut Pandey furterh contended that the appeiiant has paid the premium amount on 19-04-1995 i.e. a date before the date of accident, to h the employee of te insurance Compan,y and therefore, it was the duty of the insurance Company to insure the vehicie. Therefore, the iiabitity has wyrongi been fastened upon the appeiiants.
t2. A bare perusai of the written statement ti ted by the appeiiants would reveal that such plea has not been taken by the appeliants in their written statement nor has tiled any receipt of, premiumor cover note issued in his favour. t3. it is trite law that no amount of evidence can be looked into without pieading. ln View of a bove, there is no foerc in the contention [aised by the appeilants an d thesame deserves to be and is hereby rejected.
i4. No other points have bene raised, 15‘ in view of above discussion, l do not find any merit in the appeai, the appeal being devoid of merits is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/\tr
N.K. AGRAWAL
JUDGE ,
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appeal against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award lacks merit based on admitted negligence and lack of specific plea regarding insurance coverage.
Whether failure to plead an issue regarding payment of insurance premium estops the appellant from raising it during trial/appeal.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Shivprasad Chandrakar
Nirulal
National Insurance Company Limited
Shaikh Abdul Salam
NKK Angrwal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
