Allowed

United India Insurance Co.Ltd v. Kunti Bai and Others

Chhattisgarh HC12 Jun 2012MAC/810/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenges a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award directing the insurance company to pay compensation and recover from the vehicle owner. The High Court quashed the pay and recover direction, holding no legal basis exists for such orders when the policy was forged and the vehicle was uninsured, allowing claimants to recover directly from the owner.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the pay and recover direction; held open for claimants to recover compensation from the vehicle owner; allowed withdrawal of deposited amount.

United India Insurance Co.Ltd Vs Kunti Bai and Others — Insurance | Chhattisgarh HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPURfC.G.)

¶3

M.A.(C)No. .^.!0 OF 2007

¶4

CAPPEAL VALXJED AT Rs.6. 61.500 /-) APPEAL UNDER_SECTIQN173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. 1988 ADoellaat 1. € United India Insurance Company (Non- Applicant Limited, PowerHouse, Bhilai, No.3) Tah. & Distt-Durg (CG). Versus Respondents 1. . Smt. Kunti Bai Wd/0 - Late (Applicant No. 1) 7 Lakhanlal Sange, -i^ aged-38years, T' 2. Jeetendra Kumar , S/0 - (Applicant No.2) s Lakhanlal Sange, aged about-13 years (Applicant No.3) 3. Arvind Kumar, S/0 Late ^ Lakhanlal Sange, Aged About 6 years (Applicant No.4) 4. c" Ku. Chandrakala, D/0 - Late s Lakhanlal Sange, aged about 15 years (Applicant No.5) '?'5. Ku. Rinu, D/0 Lakhanlal Sange,aged about-9 years, Respondent no.2 to 5are minor, ^. through their mother-respondent no.l(Smt.KuntiBai) ?ssss!*6" "^^ iSftE^..--' All are R/0-vill.-Barbaspur, P.S.Ss Tahsil-Patan, Distt.-Durg (CG). (Applicant No.6) 6. Smt. Chandrakamini W/0 Rajendra Markandeya, aged -21 years,^{R/0-Village-Asoga,Tah.} Patan, Dist. - Durg (CG).~ 7. Ravi Kumar S/0 - Ramnaiya (NON-Applicant No.^jl^(Ramaixya)R/026-1-7/1Naidu, agedRamkrisna3939 years, Junction Vishaldiapatnam (Andra Paradesh) (Owner). P.Surendra Rao S/0- P.Ramaiyya, (NON-Applicant No.y^'z.^) aged-37 years, OccupationDriver, R/0- Jyotinagar Street - 6(sfar) Vedppa Palen Nellur5, (Andrapradesh) (Dnver).

¶5

Ravi Kumar S/0 - Ramnaiya (Ramaixya)R/0- Naidu, agedRamkrisna3939 years, R/0 26-1-7/1Naidu, Ramkrisna39 Junction Vishaldiapatnam (Andra Paradesh) (Owner).

¶6

HI©HeOURrOPC»HATnSGAIBIATBIfcASI>UR

¶7

MA. (Cl N0. 810 OF 2007

¶8

APPBl.LANT

¶9

Uuited India Insurance Co. Ltd,

¶10

Versws

¶11

RESPONDBN'RS^

¶12

Smt. Kunti Bai & Ofhers

¶13

APPBALUaDBRSBCTION ITSOF'IHB MOTOR VBHICLES ACT, 1988

¶14

D.B.; Honlile Dt. I.M. Ouddusi & Hon'^ Mt. G. Mtathaiuddin. JJ.

¶15

II'resen(t: Mr. Dashrath Gupta, counsel for fhe appellant. Mr. Uttam. Paadey, counselfor respondent Nos.l to 5. Mr. Sunil Sahu, counsel for respondent No.7.

¶16

ORAL ORDER

¶17

(Passed on 12th day of Jusie, 2012)

¶18

PCT Dr.J.M. Quddusi.J.

¶19

This appeal to.as been filed by the appeUant/InsuBance Compauy agaiast the award dated 26-03-2007 passed by the IXfh Additioual Motor Accident Claims Tribimal, (F.T.C.), Dist. Durg (C.G.) (heremafter caUed 'the Claims Tribunal') in Claim Case No, 147 / 2006 so far as it relates to fastening fhe UabUity upon the appeUaut/Insurance Coiupauy to pay aad recover the compensatiou from fhe owner/respondent No,7 of Dumper 'the beariug registratiou. No.AP-09-U-5752 (hereiaafter called offendiug vehicle^.

¶20

Brief facts of fhe case, as per version of the claunauts, are fhat fhe deceased Lakhaalal, husbaad offhe claiinaat/respondent No.l herein and father ofclaiinaats/respondents No.2 to 5 herein, was va. occupation of seUhig chiUy, tamarind, vegetable etc., iD. fhe markets of vfflages Demboria, Supela, Ruabaadha, Pataa, Raaitarai and adjoining viUages. On fhe moraiag of 13-04-2005 at about 10:00 a.m., fhe deceased Lakhanlal was goiag to seU tomcinnds ia the market situated near Boria Gate BIulai from. vfflage Barbaspur on his bicycle at Bis lefi. side. At that time near Patoura, Police Station Utai, Tehsfl Patan, the offendiag vehicle bearin.g registration No. AP-09-U-5752, owned by iion-applicaat No.l/respondent No.7 tierein, iusured by non-applicant No.S/appeUaut herem., which was beiag driven by non-applicant

¶21

.^ssmSia<s2''</. ^'^r^'f'^''' ^. 'ti 8 r^t i k.f^y/

¶22

No.Z/respondent No.8 hereia in a rash and aegligent xnaBner, daished Lakhaulal as a result ofwliich he djed on the spot and his bicycle was got damaged. At the tiiiie of accident, the deceased

¶23

LakhaalalwaseariungRs.200/-perday.

¶24

The claimante being legal heir of fhje deceased had ffled a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the Act, 1988'), before ttic Clauns Tribtinal claiming a total amount of compeusation of Rs. 16,86,800/- iinder various heads for fhe death of the deceased.

¶25

Learued Claim.s.Tnbunal ona close scrutiny ofevidence led, material placed and subinissions m.ade by the parties, has awarded a total aniount of Rs.6,61,500/- fasteniug fhe liability upon fhe non-appUcaat No.S/appeIlan.t/Insiu-ance Compaay to pay coinpensation to the claunants/respondeiits No.l to 5 along with iuterest @ 6% per aimum witfaia two inonths from fh.e date of order till its realization aud recover fhe same fi'oni non-applicants No. 1 & 2/respondents No.7 & 8 joinfly or severatty.

¶26

We have heard leamed counsel appeanng for the parties and perused fhe iinpugned award as well as the record of the Clauns Tribunal,

¶27

Firafly, fhere is no law under which the order of pay aad recover could be xuade.

¶28

Secondly, fhe law laid down by fhe Hou'ble Apex Court ia Nalional Insuran.ee Co. Ltd. 7s. Swwesn Singh eavtt. otfaers reported in (2004) 3 scc 297, caanot be treated as a precedent as already Bientioned in. fhe judginent by fh.e Hon'ble Apex Court ia Swaran Singh's case (Suprc^.

¶29

Thirdly, in the case of NtitSfonal Jnsarance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pmvathneni und Another, (2009) 8 SCC 785. the Hon'ble Apex Court has already held that oid.er of pay and recover catmot be passed aad the niatter has been referred to the larger Bench.

¶30

Fourfhly, the msuraace policy made by the United India Insurance Coaipany Limited was forged policy on the basis of which fhe liability has toeen. fastened upon fhe

¶31

,ya

¶32

t^~ •^^

¶33

appellant/ias'UBcance company. 'Elw ofleiidtog velucle was xtot, , jasured duilag^the, period^whea (he^accideiithad tateen place.

¶34

1Q. In the facts and eircuiastaaces inentfoned above, wc are of the opiuion tbat Babflity could not have fastened upon tfig' appeUant/uisurance coiupany to pay the amount of CQmpensation to fhe claitiiaats and recover it later on flx)m flie ownerQffheveIucle.

¶35

11, Iiittie result, we aUow ttds appeal and set aside fhe part of impiiigned award by wtiich the appeUaat had been directed to pay the amount of coxupensation to fbe claimaats aad recover fhe

¶36

same foiu owner of fhe offendingvehlcle. However, itwfflbe open to the claimaa.ts to recover fhe amount of compensation fiTQiu fhe

¶37

owner of fhe offendiug vehicle.

¶38

The address of the owner of fhe ofifendiag vehicle, who is

¶39

preseut ui person, is aa foUows:-

¶40

"P, Ravi Kumar,

¶41

S/o Ramanaiah Naidu,

¶42

26-2-643, 6th Street Jyothi Nagar, Nellore - 4

¶43

Mob-9440126189"

¶44

The owner of fhe offending vehicle has been examined by this Court uuder Order 21 Rule 41 ofthe Cr.P.C. He has stated fhat he is not having auy movabte or muriovable property as he has already sold fhe ofFending vehicle.

¶45

It will be open for the MACT concemed to execute fhe irapugaed award on laoviag appBcation by the clatmaiits even by issuiag arrest warraiit as iu ttie appeal the owner of fhe offendiug

¶46

vehicle i.e. respondent No.7 Iiad not turaed up luiless the nonbailable wan-aiit ofarrestwas ijssued agam.st Tiim.

¶47

The amount which has already beea deposited by the appeUant/iusui'ance compaay sliall be allowed to be wifhdrawn byit.

¶48

No order as to costs.

¶49

Bky

¶50

''' G.Minhajjudin Sd/Judge I.M.Quddusi Judge

United India Insurance Co.Ltd v. Kunti Bai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

United India Insurance Co.Ltd v. Kunti Bai 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chandrashekhar Sahu Vs Smt. Nikita @ Suman Sahu

Smt Shweta Vs Shashank Sharma

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

M/S Airen and Associates Vs M/S Sanmar Weighing Systems Pvt.Ltd.

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Smt. Rita Verma and Ors.

Br.Manager,National Insu.Co. Ltd. Vs Droupati Bai and Others