Allowed

The New India Assurance Co.Ltd v. Champalal Chandak and Others

Chhattisgarh HC11 Jun 2012MAC/199/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Insurance Appeal Court allowed the insurance company's appeal against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award. The court held that because the claimant sat in the open Dala of the truck without a seat, breaching insurance policy conditions, the insurance company is exonerated of liability to pay compensation. The claimant must seek recovery from the driver and owner.

What did the court decide?

The impugned award fastening liability on the appellant is set aside; the appellant is exonerated of liability; the claimant may realize compensation from the driver and vehicle owner.

The New India Assurance Co.Ltd Vs Champalal Chandak and Others — Insurance | Chhattisgarh HC (2012)

¶1

BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fC.G.l

¶2

i?e^Sira^ Nss^^?s M.A.(C) N0. /20 i^n &s^SBSjS3

¶3

^r'

¶4

APPELLANT .RESPONDENT N0.3 RESPONDENT N0.1 1 CLAIMANT

¶5

RESPONDENT N0.2 2. y DEFENDANTN0.1 RESPONDENT N0.3 .3 DEFENDANT N0.2 c? fOWNER)

¶6

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd Jagdalpur, through - Divisional Manager, Division Office, Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

Champalal Chandak, aged about 33 years, son of Shri Dhanraj Chandak, caste Maheshwari, resident of village Dornapal, P.S. Dornapal, Tah. Konta, Distt. South Bastar, Dantewada (C.G.)

¶9

Manjit Mandal, son of Shri Anukul Mandal, aged about 27 years, (Vehicle Owner), resident of village P.V. 52, P.S. Kalimela, Distt. Malkangiri (Orissa)

¶10

Omprakas Gandhi, aged about³⁴ years, son of Shri Jethmal Gandhi, resident of village Dornapal P.S. Dornapal Distt. Dantewada

¶11

(Chhattisgarh)

¶12

APPEAL UNDER SECTION173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACU988

¶13

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶14

DIVISION BENCH: HON'BLE DR. I.M.QUDDUSI & HON'BLE MR. G. MINHAJUDDIN, JJ.

¶15

hfl.A. M No199/2007

¶16

Appellant

¶17

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

¶18

¶19

Respondents

¶20

Champalal Chandak and others

¶21

Present:

¶22

Mr. Shailendra Sharma, counsel for the appellant. None for the respondents, though served.

¶23

ORDER (Orall (11th June, 2012)

¶24

Per Dr. I.M. Quddusi. J;

¶25

List is being revised. The case was called out thrice. However, no one appears for the respondents despite service of notice upon them. Therefore, we proceed ex-parte against the respondents.

¶26

•-•:i

¶27

This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed by the appellant/insurance company against the award dated 28.9.2006 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dantewada (in short "Tribunal") in Claim Case No.15/05, insofar as it has fastened the liability to pay compensation to the claimant on the appellanVinsurance company.

¶28

Brief facts of the case, as per averments made in the claim petition, are that on 8.5.2003 respondent No.l/claimant alongwith other traders was going from Dornapal to Jagargunda by Matador bearing registration No. 608 CG 18 ZB/0140 for the purpose of selling clothes in the weekly market. However, on the way near VillageTimirwada, on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No.2/driver, the said vehicle turned turtle. As a result, left thigh bone of respondent No.l/claimant got fractured and he sustained grievous^{injuriesonhisshoulderandstomach.Onaccountofthe} injuries sustained by respondent No.l/claimant, he is not able to walk without support and has become permanently disabled. Prioi

¶29

¶30

to the accident, respondent No.l/claimant used to earn Rs.4000/by selling clothes in the market. Therefore, he filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short "the Act, 1988") before the claims Tribunal for a total compensation of Rs. 19,96,0007- undervarious heads.

¶31

However, learned Tribunal after hearing counsel for the parties and on close scrutiny of the evidence adduced by the pari:ies, by the impugned award granted a total compensation of Rs. 5,83,400/- in favour of the claimant, fastening the liability upon the appellanVinsurance company, jointly and severally alongwith respondent No.2/driver & respondent No.S/owner.

¶32

Heard learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company and perused the LCR as well as the impugned award.

¶33

•.^tJV .-•'••tu^

¶34

We have perused the LCR aswell as the contents of the award and found that though the claimant was traveling with his goods in the vehicle in question, but was not sitting inside the cabin and was sitting in the Dala of the vehicle. As many as 11 persons were sitting in the Dala, where there was no sitting capacity. As such, there was breach of condition of the insurance policy and in a case where there is breach of condition of insurance policy, the insurance company cannot be held liable to pay compensation. Learned Tribunal was not justified in fastening the liability upon the appellant/insurance company.

¶35

In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned award, so far as it relates to fastening of liability upon the appellant/insurance company, is set aside. The appellant/insurance company is exonerated of its liability. However, it will be open for the claimant to realize the amount of compensation from respondent No.2/driver and respondent No.S/owner ofthe vehicle, jointly and severally.

¶36

No order as to costs.

¶37

•SA'I.M.Quddusi Judge

¶38

G.Minhajjudin Judge

¶39

The New India Assurance Co.Ltd v. Champalal Chandak and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The New India Assurance Co.Ltd v. Champalal Chandak 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

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Chandresh Kumar Roy and Others

Smt. Saraswati Rai Vs Vijay Lal Mourya and Ors.

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Lakhan Nath and Ors.

Chandrashekhar Sahu Vs Smt. Nikita @ Suman Sahu

Smt Shweta Vs Shashank Sharma

Tiwari Ram Rajwade and Anr. Vs Heeramani and Ors.