Allowed

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Yogeshwari Bai and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC3 Feb 2012MAC/307/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On an appeal under Section 173, the High Court held that a liability insurance policy covering personal use did not cover the death of an occupant friend of the owner. The Tribunal was reprimanded for imposing liability on the insurer. The insurance award was set aside as far as liability was concerned, and compensation is to be paid by the owner and driver.

What did the court decide?

Impugned award set aside as to liability on insurer; compensation to be paid jointly and severally by owner and driver.

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Yogeshwari Bai… — Consumer Protection | Chhattisgarh HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTtSGARH AT BILASPUR

¶2

M.A.fC). N0. 3o7 /2011 a^y_ o a

¶3

APPELLANT

¶4

^.A.No.3)

¶5

/The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Through : Divisional Manager, D.O.-I, Jail Road, Raipur, Tahsil and bistrict Raipur (C.G.),

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

RESPONDENTS Yogeshwari'Bai Wd/o. Late
^(Applicants) y
Khilesh\iVar Tandan, ageda bout 32
Years,
Ku. Purnima D/o Late Khileshwar
^
Tandan, agecl about 11 years,
Mohit S/b. Late Khileshwar
>
^..^y>
^5^< 4. Tandan,Kutdeep agedson aboutof Late9 yearsKhileshwar
^./^N ^
^•^"'^_ / Tandan, aged about 7 years
^,^^-K'<<y<i7
Sandeep son of Late Khileshwar
Tandan, aged about 5 years,
6. Ku. Chandani d/o Late Khileshwar
Tandan, aged about 3 years,
•^^-
Pradeep son of Late Khileshwar
Tandan, aged about 1 month,
^^
Sukaluram Tondan son of lae Nohar
\7^
^ Tondan, aged about 65 years,
^,^ Santara Bai wife of Sukalu Ram
^<^ Tondan, aged about 64 years,
Respondent No.2, 3,4, 5, 6 & 7are
.V- ^'^'
^ Minors, Through Their' natural
guardian mother Res.No.l
i^ ^ Yogeshwari Bai wd/o Late
Khileshwar Tondan.
^v-^: y
^ A II resident of Village Mohbhatta,
P.S. Halti Bandh, District Raipur

¶8

Sukaluram Tondan son of lae Nohar Tondan, aged about 65 years, Santara Bai wife of Sukalu Ram Tondan, aged about 64 years, Respondent No.2, 3,4, 5, 6 & 7are Minors, Through Their' natural guardian mother Res.No.l Yogeshwari Bai wd/o Late Khileshwar Tondan.

(C.G.)/'

N.A. No.l

N.A.No.2

bomendra Singh @ Dinesh Son of &ovind bas Mahilang, Purani Basti, Near Anand Talkies, Baloda Bazar, Tahsil and District Raipur (C.G.)

¶15

Sunil Kumar Agrawal son of R.K. Agrawal, R/o. Bazarpara, Ratanpur, P.0. Tatanpur, bistrict Bilaspur (c.e.).

¶16

APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT

¶17

¶18

¶19

DI¥I.§ION.I.E.NCH: FBLE Mft. 6.

¶20

The Oriento! Insurance Co. Ltd.

¶21

Vs .

¶22

Respondents Yo.Qeshwari Bai A others

¶23

Prescrit^

¶24

Mr* A.K. Athale, Advocate for- the appeiiant. Mr. 5, Tandon, Advocate for the respondents ?\aoJ to 7 & 9. None for the respondent Nos,10 & 11 service of notice.

¶25

(3pd^rd Februar^

¶26

I. By-way of ths's appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicies Act, 1988 the

¶27

(for short 'the AcY), the GppeJbnt-Insurartce Company award dated 10.11,2010 by the iearned 1 Additionai AAotor Accjdent Ciaims'Tnbunai, Raipur (for short 'the Claims Tribunal') m Claim Case No.64/09.

¶28

Facts of the case, in brief, are that on 07.12,2008 due to and negiigent driving by the driver of car bearing registration number CSIOZD-1367, in which Khiieshwar Tandon travelling, overturned as a resutt of which Khiieshwar Tandon died on the spot to grievous injunes sus-rained by him< Report of-the accident iodged in the Poiice Station Simga. The cbimants, who are widpw, children and parents of the deceased, have fited a ciaim application before the Cialms Tribuna! compensation of Rs,6,47,000/Ma on the ground that they were dependent on the deceased, who was earning m the family, and due to his death, they have suffered of income.

¶29

3., The CJGims Tribuna! vide . impugned award aibwed the ciaim partiy

¶30

•' appiicatlon, awarded a sum of Rs'AJO,300/» aiiQ held the appeijant herein

¶31

iresponsjbie to pay the amount of compensation.

¶32

4, We have heard learned counsef for fhe appeiiant and the respondent-

¶33

¶34

5, Learned counsei for the appeiiant has submitted that car in question insured for personal use, whereas at the time of accident itwas being used for commercial purpose, He further submits that risk of occupants not covered under the insurance policy as no extra premium paid for the occupants,

¶35

On the other hand, ieamed counsei for th^ respondent-ciaimants has supported the impugned award.

¶36

¶37

We have the record and found that the Insurance Poficy is only a iiabjlityf poiicy and it was not a cornprehensive policy though the personai accident therein was coyered by payment of extra premium of Rs«i00/"". It is not the case of death of owner rather occupant of the car, who was friend of the owner and traveiiinq in the said car, i.n-the accident and-.as such, the is not covered by the insurance poiicy. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the^Cbims Tribunal has wrongiy fastened liabiiity on the Insurance Company to pay compensation to the claimants.

¶38

In the result, the appeal is oJlowed and the impugned award is set so far as it relates to fastening of iiabilily on the appeliant-Insurance Cornpany and hold that amount of compensation invoived in the impugned shail be jointly & severaily paid by the owner & the driver of the offending vahicle i.e. respondents No.IO & 11 herein. In case any amount deposited by the appeiiant-Insurance Comoany has been withdrawn by the claitnants, it wiil be open for the Insurance Company to recover the from the owner A the driver of the offending vehicie, jointly & severaliy. However, if the amount, so deposlted, has not withdrawn so far, the Insurance Company shali be albwed to..withdraw the same... of the ' conditions and findings of the impugned award are hereby coinfirmed. It is clarified that the ciaimants are free to execute the impugned award ' against the owner & the driver of the offendingjehicie, jointly & severaJly.

¶39

9J No order as to costs.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

I.M.Quddusi Judge

¶42

Sd/G. Minhajuddin Judge

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Yogeshwari Bai and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Yogeshwari Bai and Ors.

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

Land Acquisition Officer and Anr. Vs Prabal Kumar and 2 Others

National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Surjeet Kaur and Others

Rajendra Kumar Netam Vs Chandrasekhar Tiwari and Others

Agrawal Iron Industries Vs Steel Auhtority of India Ltd. and Ors.

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Omkar Aprasad and Ors.

Gyanendra Khunte and Anr. Vs Bajrang and Ors.