Allowed

United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Adam and Others

Chhattisgarh HC13 Aug 2012MA/233/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against Motor Accidents Tribunal award awarding compensation. Appellant argued liability should be void due to driver's forged licence. Court set aside strict liability holding but ordered payment under Supreme Court ratio allowing subrogation recovery later.

What did the court decide?

Tribunal award set aside against appellant liability; appellant ordered to pay compensation fixed by Tribunal and recover from owner/driver via execution petition.

United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Adam and Others — Insurance | Chhattisgarh HC (2012)

¶1

.^--1

¶2

'^£^yL' '.'I
if^

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

MISC. APPEAL No. 233 of 2003

¶5

APPELLANT Non-Applicant No.3	United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Through - Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Kutchery
	Chowk, Raipur, Tah. & District Raipur (C.G.) Versus
Respondents	1. Adam, S/o Jems Harijan, R/o
	Mahiko Deoras, Thana Mahiko Deoras, District Krishna, Andhra Pradesh.
	2. K. Ram Babu, S/o Narayan
	Venkkat Satyanarayan, R/o
	Mauza Milavaram, District
	Krishna, Main Bazar, House No.3/75, Andhra Pradesh. ... Non-applicants No.1 &2
	3. Shivshankar Sinha, S/o Shri
	Duleshwar Singh Sinha, aged
	about 11 years,
	Minor, through Wali father -
	Duleshwar Singh Sinha, R/o
	Durga Para, Santoshi Nagar,
	Raipur, Tah. & District Raipur
	(C.G.) .... Claimant...

¶6

APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988

¶7

SB:- Hon. Shri N.K. Agarwal, J

¶8

PRESENT:-

¶9

Shri Sanjay Shyam Agrawal, counsel for the appellant. Shri Pushkar Sinha, counsel for respondent No.3 None for respondents No.1 & 2 though served.

¶10

ORALAWARD

¶11

(Passedon 13.08.2012)

¶12

This is insurer's appeal-against the award dated 24.10.2002 passed by 8 Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (F.T.C.), Raipur, in claim case No. 58/2002.

¶13

^^^^^^^••^^•^'^^'asiss^ssaRfss^i'wsiaveseSia^j^Sii'^i

¶14

C^£i

¶15

As against the compensation of Rs.2,07,941/- claimed by the claimant, i.e., respondent No.3 by filing claim application under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 03.08.1995, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,30,654/- to the claimants along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of application till its actual payment.

¶16

The Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence led, held: the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Truck bearing registration No.A.H.H..3168 by its driver - Adam, i.e. respondent No.1; respondent No.S/claimant sustained serious injuries in the motor accident; the appellant/insurance company liable for payment of compensation; assessed and awarded the aforesaid sum as compensation in favour of claimant/respondent No.3 also fastening liability of payment of compensation upon the appellant.

¶17

IBK'!

¶18

Shri Sanjay S. Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submits: although the Tribunal in paragraphs 26 and 27 of its award has categorically held that the offending truck was plied in violation of the policy conditions, inasmuch as, the driver of the offending truck was not possessing valid and effective driving licence to drive the truck at the time of accident, even then the Tribunal has fastened the liability of payment of compensation upon the appellant/insurance company, which deserves to be set aside.

¶19

Per contra, Shri Pushkar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 supported the award.

¶20

I hav6 heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the award impugned including the record ofthe Tribunal.

¶21

.7. The appellant has proved the breach of condition of the policy on the part of the owner of the vehicle by examining Superintendent,

¶22

'a^w**wee^sSS's.a&iits^ sit^M^^^rg

¶23

¶24

District Transport Office, Karimnagar (A.P.). According to his statement, the driving licence in question was forged and fake.

¶25

•:!|iNliC

¶26

A fake or forged lipence is as good as no licence. The Tribunal, in paragraphs 26 & 27 ofthe award, has categorically held that owner was guilty of willful breach of the conditions of the insurance policy, inasmuch as, the driver of the truck was driving the vehicle with a licence, which was fake and forged and the above fact was well within the knowledge of the owner. Therefore, on the face, the Tribunal went wrong in holding the appellant/insurance company liable for payment of compensation despite willful breach of conditions of the policy of insurance on the part of the, owner and the above finding, on the face, is not sustainable in law.

¶27

For the reasons mentioned herein above, the appeal deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The award passed by the Tribunal against the appellant/insurance company is set aside. The award is modified to the above extent. Rest of the conditions of the award shall remain intact. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, applying the ratio of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Swaran Singh, (2004 (3) SCC 297, I direct the appellanVinsurance company to first pay the amount of compensation fixed by the Tribunal to respondent No.S/claimant and then to recover the same from the owner and/or driver by filing execution petition before the concerned Claims Tribunal.

¶28

No order as to costs.

¶29

Sd/N.K. Agrawal Judge

United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Adam and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Adam 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Office Reference Vs State of C.G. and Ors.

Smt.Indira Chauhan Vs Rupendra Kumar Singh

Reference Vs State of C.G.

M/S Hariyali Restaurant and Ors. Vs Bank of Baroda and Ors.

Godavati Vs State Bank of India

Peer Mohd. Vs K.Nageshwar Rao and Anr.