Appellants appeals against Award holding them vicariously liable for accident caused by unauthorized driver of their commercial vehicle. Court rejected defense of lack of permission and affirmed tribunal award dismissing appeal.
Application for condonation of delay allowed; Appeal against Award dismissed.
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.
COURTFEES EXEMPTED BY NOTIFSGATIOlMN0.996(yD-2STO/XXI; B/C.G^05AS SPECIFIED IN_SCHEDULE i&UOFTHEeOURTFEES ACT 1870.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.G.I
M.A. (Cl N0. ....S.oh.2^......./2011
APPELLANTS
The Chief Executive OfScer, froin'C.E.O., Janpad Panchayat, Janpad Panchayat, Kanker, Tahsil and District Kanker (CG.)
(——Non-Applicant no. 2)
The C.E.O., Janpad Panchayat, Janpad Panchayat Narharpur, Tahsil Narharpur, District Kanker (CG.)
(——Non-AppUcant no. 3)
State of Chhattisgarh,
Thought the Incharge Collector, Collector Office, Kanker, TahsU and District Kanker (CG.) (Registeredownersof theMatador bearing No. CG. 02- 5059)
(——Non-Applicant no. 4)
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS
/ 1,
Reliance General Insurance, Company Liinited, thoughf its Branch Manager, Branch Office,
Shop no. 412 and 413, 4st Floor, Ravi Bhawan, Jai Stambh Chowk, Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur (CG.), Policy No. 2303782334002371 and date of validity from 01/06/2008 to 31/05/2009.
(———Nonapplicant no. 5)
Smt. Sonbati Bai, W/o. Maharuram Netam, Aged 36 years, years,
<"!Aged 36 years, years, Ku. Kavita Netam, D/o Maharuram Netam, Aged 9 years,
(Minorrepresented through the Valli mother Sonbati Bai Netam),
Both R/o village Bahnapani, Thana and Tahsil Narharpur, District Kanker.fCG.)
(—Claimants)
.-t."?
(——Nonapplicant no. 1)
MISCm-LANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT. 1988.
/.
^
*« Sir'i-ifc. i¥Jii^«%•?• ^1
'?"s 'he Chief Executive Officer A& orhersnr
Reliance General Insurance Company Limlted & others Bflr>Tr>D iycMir'1 co A.CT ^ufs^ i?&-lTig^a«B-t>^ ^"^^p S K 'rese^l Vinay Harit, Dy. Advocate ira! for the State/appeSiante. Mr. Sourabii Sharma, Advocate for CompanjfT'respondent No.1. None t'or respondents No.2 & 3 though serves
r ''
^ aajrf*. donation of appeat is b<
have perused the contents of the app'ication made by the seeking condonatlon of delay in flling the appeal. Having through the contents of the appiication which ts duly supported 1 affidavity 'we are satisfied that good and sufficient ground Is in the appllcation which-.constitutes a sufficient cause for ion of delay in fiiing the appeal.
!n our opinion, condoning the deiay advances the cause of justit On the other hand, not condoning the delay would defeat the very of ctaiming substantia! justlce.
ie foregoing discussion, application (!.A.'No.1) for condonation of delay in fil lin go th @e 8DD©8lappe
^
.^5..^"^: /r^ '\
made by the appellants is atlowed and the delay In fillng the appea! is
This appeal has been filed bythe appellants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short hereinafter referred to as "the Act") against the award dated 08-12-2010 passed by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, North Bastar, Kanker (C.G.) (for short hereinafter referred to as 'the Cjaims Tribunai') ir. C'aim Case No.147/2008 whereby exonerating the tnsurance Company/respondent No.1 herein, ItabiSJty to pay compensatlon to the claimants/respondents No.2 & 3 herein has been fastened josntly and severaily upon the
le was owned by pon-appticants No.2 to 4; No.5.
to».^••~.>. "^ "A £. 'lfc'-."'vS-:--^^ ^'y
^
'he claimants filed a ctalm petition under Section 1 ©6of the before the Claims TribunaS claiming a total amount of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation alongwith 9% interest thereon from the date of filing of claim petition, from the non-appllcants for the injuries sustained by them on account of said accident.
R
^iftfc 1 ^.•-.fsf
counsel for the appel ers hss contended that ng^vehlcte at the relevant f time was being driven driver/resDondent No.4 tvithout the permlssion of the •ieio!' srs ana reillt ^" to pay the amount of compensation and the liabllity in this re( wrongly been fastened upon the appellants. It is not in dispute that one Jagdish Korram was the regular driver of the offending vehide and driver/respondent No.4 was his nephew. From the evidence avaiiabie off record, it is found-. that the driver/respondent No.4 stated tha{ on being asked by
•i:f-^
^/
his uncie Jagdish Korram, he was transporting the members of a mamage party in the offending vehicle and at that time the sccident had occurred. In such state of affairs, the appeliants/owners as masters are definiteiy vicariousiy liabte for the acts of their servant l.e. driver Jagdish Korram and if the driver Jagdish Korram had committed any fault in permitting the offendsng vehicie to be driven In contravention of the directions of their masters and against the terms s.nd conditlons of the Insurance Policy, then the appetlants being the owners are deflnitely vicarious!y llabie for the acts of their servant. Therefore, the conSsntson of the learned counsei Tor the appeliants in is regard cannot be sustainfid and is rejected,
iame is just and proper compensation and needs no interference
in the result, the appeai fa'is and is accordingiy dismissed.
/Sky/
Sd/iSd/G. Minhajuddin Abhay Manohar Sapre Judge Judge
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the owners of the commercial vehicle could be held vicariously liable for the accident caused by an unauthorized driver.
Whether the injured claimants were passengers inside the vehicle or standing by the side of the road.
Whether the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal needs to be interfered with.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Kanker
The C.E.O., Janpad Panchayat, Narharpur
State of Chhattisgarh
Reliance General Insurance Company Limited
Smt. Sonbati Bai
Ku. Kavita Netam
Abhay
Minhajuddin Sapre
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
