Allowed

Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Smt.Beby Kumari and Others

Chhattisgarh HC8 Jul 2011MAC/35/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the insurance company's appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, holding them not liable for an accident involving a passenger-carrying commercial vehicle because the driver lacked a valid license for such vehicles at the time.

What did the court decide?

The applicant/Insurance company is exonerated from its liability to pay compensation. The relevant portions of the impugned award are set aside. The amount in deposit shall be refunded.

Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Smt.Beby Kumari and Others — Insurance | Chhattisgarh HC (2011)

¶1

^"fi

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR Misc.Apoeal No. ^^ OF 2006 'c^ APPELLANT ^ ^/ ^The Orientallnsurance isurer) Company Limited, through

¶3

Company Limited, through the Divisional Manager, Division Office, Main Road ,Jagdalpur (C.G.)

¶4

Versus

¶5

(>1.^{Smt.BebykumariW/o} late Pramod kumar Berua aged 25 years

¶6

2,. Ku. Shatu d/o late Pramod kumarBerua aged about 12 years

¶7

^. Ku. Yogita d/o late Pramod kumar Berua aged about 9 years, ^, ^-. Ku. Ankita d/o late Pramod kumar Berua aged about 3 years (Respondent No. 2 to 4 through his guardian Smt. Beby kumari W/o late Pramod kumar Berua ) ( All respondent resident of Dantevada Disst.

¶8

Dantewada )

¶9

Shri Ghasuram Manzhi

¶10

^ S/o Shri Ludu Manzhi, aged about 38 years, resident of Sanjay Para, Bhairamgadh, Dist. Dantewada (C.G) Owner

¶11

^6. Shri Manoj Kumar

¶12

/ Kashyap S/o Mahendra Nath Kashyap Village - Heeranar,Gidam, Dist.

¶13

Dantewada (C.G.) Driver

¶14

^^^a^»!W.^ffl..S.^...UteiiU^^

¶15

¶16

(2)

¶17

('Vt ^ YOJ ^^" ^ •^^'s ^ €• \v

¶18

¶19

H£GH CGURT OF CHHATTSSOARH AT BSLASPUH

¶20

M.A. iCI N0. 35 OF

¶21

APPELLAKT/ Tiie Oiieiilal iiisLiraiice Co. Ltd. (Insui'er)

¶22

Veisii^

¶23

RESPOm5EI'?TS

¶24

Smt. Beby KLUuai'i aiid others.

¶25

APPEAL UI^DER SECTIO?i 173 OF THB MOTOR ACT,

¶26

¶27

Division BenchsKon'bJe Shri i.M. Guddusi SB Hosi'ble Shri Q. Miahaiuddis, JJ.

¶28

Preseats Shri Abliishek Suilia aloug with Slii'i

¶29

Ghanshyaia

¶30

Patel^ counsel for the appellaiit.

¶31

Shri P.R. Patankar, counsel for respondent NQ. 1. None for other respondents tliougli sei-ved.

¶32

OSSAL ORDBH

¶33

(Passed oia 08th d&y ofJuly, 2011)

¶34

Per i.M. Guddusi. J.

¶35

Tliis appeal has been llled by tiie appellatit/Oriental Insui'aiice Co. Ltd. agaiust tlie irupugned awai'd dated 27-08-2005 passed by tiie Additlonal Motor Accldent Claims Tribuual, Soutli Bastai^ Daiitewada (for short tlie Clainis Tribm-ial) in Claim Case No. 126/2004, m so fai' as it relates to fasteniiig ofthe Uabllity to pay compensatlon to the claimaiits, upon tiie appellaiit/Insui'ance Compaiiy.

¶36

Brief facts of tlie case accordiug to clauuaiits ai~e that deceased was husbaiid of Claimaiit No.l aiid faflier of Claimaiits No.2 to 4. On 16-02-2004 in U-ie evenmg at 7 to 7-30, the deceased Praiiiod K-LU-nai' was goiiig towai'ds Saiijay Pai-a, Bhauaiugai'h along with his friend on cycle. He was dashed by Commaiider Jeep beai'uig registi-ation No. C.G. 18-ZD-0108 due to r-ash aiid negUgent ditv-mg of the diiver of^the Jeep, as a result of which the deceased

¶37

..^,.<^^S^%£?^^y^^^^^^^

¶38

•%

¶39

^^.

¶40

sustalned grievous injuries in the accident. Tliereafter, he was taken to Prmiary Health Centre, Bhakaiiigarh arid looking to the seriousness of tlie mjm'ies sustained by hun, was refened to Maliai'aiii Hospital, Jagdalpur but he died on the way to Mal'iai'aiii Hospital, Jagdalpur. A case was registered m Police Station, Bhairaiiigai'h against respondent No.5 (Ghasm'aiii) driver oftlie offcnding vel-iicle under Sectlons 279, 337, 338 ai-id 304(A) ofIPC. 3. The claiiiiaiits bemg legal heirs of tiie deceased had filed a petition under Section 166 of ti-ie Motor Vehicles Act (for short <U-ie Act, 1988?) before tl-ie Claims Tribmial claiinmg total compensation of Rs.24,70,000/- for flie death of the deceased iii the said accident.

¶41

Leai'ned Tribunal on a close scrutmy of evidence led; material placed aiid submissions made by tlie parties, has awai'ded a total smii of Rs.5,52,000/- as compensation along witii interest @ 7.5% per aiinum.

¶42

The owner and driver ofthe offending vehicle C.G. 18 ZD/0108 have ffled theii joint wrltten statement in which tliey had denied tliat Uie accident had occuiT-ed on account of tlie rash and negligent drivmg of tlie driver/respondent No.5. On ti-ie controLiy, tliey have pleaded that the accident had occuned on account of the negllgence of tiie deceased aiid his friend Baldeo Prasad who suddenly caine m fi-ont of tiie Jeep driven by respondent No. 5 aiid to save them, the driver turned tiie jeep but despite all efforts, could not save them aiid m tlie process, the vehlcle after collidmg agaiiist a pole had tui'ned tuille.

¶43

Despite service of notice upon respondeuts No.5 & 6 i.e. (Drivei aiid Owner), tliey have not filed aay Vakalatnaina aiid today neither they are present nor tliey are represeiited by aiiy oue. Therefore, we proceed expai~te agaiiist tliem. J^

¶44

^'\

¶45

We have heai'd leai'ned counsel for tlic pai-ties aiid perused^{tlierecordsoffheClaii-nsTribuiialasalsotiie} impugned awai-d.

¶46

On perusal of the records of the Claiius Tribunal, it is fomid that Ghasuraiii was havuig a driviiig llcence for drivmg Liglit Motor Velilcle for private purpose, which was valld u-om 27-03-2004 to 14-10-2016 but m uis drrvmg licence the date from wlilch drivmg licence was to be effective has wrongly beeu written by mistake as 27-012004. The date of accident is 06-02-2004 but smce tiie vehicle was a passenger cai'-iyliig commercial veliicle, tlie driving Ucence authorizing hiiu to drive private motor vel-iicle from 2004 to 20 16 was of no use.

¶47

Sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the Act provides tliat a diivhig licence issued or renewed under tlie Motor Vehicles Act, in tlie case of a licence to drive traiisport vehicle be effective for a period of tliree yeai~s aiid iii case ofother licence for a period of twenty yeai's or tiie person obtaiiiuig llcence, has not attaliied the age of fifty which ever- 1s eai-iier. Therefore, to di-ive a ti'aiisport vehicle, tlie licence is issued for a period of ti-u'ee yeai-s only and, therefore, the driver Ghasui-ain was not authori'zed to drive tl-ie passengercaiTymg commercial vel-ucle l.e. traiisport veliicle aiid hence he was not haviiig valid aiid effective drivuig licence on the date of accident. The insuraiice policy of the veliicle in question is a package policy for Zone C Passenger Cai'iymg Cormiiercial Velilcle for 4 wheeler (Cai-). Therefore, the Insiii'ance Cornpaiiy should not have been held liable to pay corupensation.

¶48

In view of tlie above, appeal 1s aUowed. The appellatit/Insuraiice Compmiy is exonerated from its liability to pay compensation.

¶49

It will be open for the Clakiiaiits to realize tiie aniount of corupensation froni the owner of the vehicle as tlie owner aiid the driver ai'e jomtly aiid severatly responslble to pay the amouiit of compensation awai'ded by tiie Tribunal. Therefore, tiie pai't of mipugned awaixl by wl-iich msui-aiice compaiiy has been held liable to pay compensation aiid issues No. 2 & 3 by wliich it has been held tiiat on tiie date of accident, the driver was havmg valid aiid efiective cuiving licence, ther-e was no br-eacli of insurance policy conditions, is set aside.

¶50

The aniomit which is ui deposit shall be refuiided to the appellaiit/Insm-aiice Compaiiy. In case the saiiie has been disbuirsed, it will be open to it to recover tlie saine from tiie owner aiid driver ofthe veiiicle.

¶51

No order as to costs. ^7

¶52

Sd/I.M. Quddusi Judge

¶53

Sd/G. Minhajuddin Judge

¶54

Kvr

Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Smt.Beby Kumari and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Smt.Beby Kumari and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sarjeet Kaur and Others

National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Chamar Ram Dhiwar and Others

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Shyamlal Dhiwar and Others

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Neetu Singh Thakur and Ors.

Bajaj Allianz General in. Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Minaxi and Others

Branch Manager,New India Insurance Co. Vs Smt. Kajal and Ors.