Dismissed

Auto Insurance Kinetic Finance Ltd. v. Smt. Dushila Parganiya and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC1 Mar 2012REVP/16/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a review petition seeking to challenge a decision on insurance liability. The court noted the ground of liability was not pressed in the appeal under Section 145 CPC and held no good ground existed for review.

What did the court decide?

Review petition dismissed; insurance claim held to be covered under the comprehensive policy.

Auto Insurance Kinetic Finance Ltd. Vs Smt. Dushila Parganiya… — Insurance | Chhattisgarh HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR. REVIEW PETITION No. f£ /2012

¶2

APPLICANT

¶3

Auto Insurance Kinetic Finance Ltd., / s Kinetic House Sector-I, D—53, Devendra Nagar Raipur (C.G.) An agency of Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. through the Branch Manager, Shivmohan Bhavan, gPandri, Raipur (C.G.) (Appellant)

¶4

VERSUS K NON APPLICANTS 1. Smt. Dushila Parganiya W/o Late Shri Ishwar Narayan Parganiya, aged about 27 years,

¶5

¢§ahu1 Parganiya S/o late Shri Ishwar Narayan Parganiya, aged about~ 1'2 years,

¶6

3.40hit Parganiya S/o Late Shri Ishwar Narayan Parganiya, aged about 10 years,

¶7

4.‘/Saurabh Parganiya S/o Late Shri Ishwar Narayan Parganiya,^agedabout 10 years,

¶8

Tarun Parganiya S/o^Late Shri Ishwar Narayan Parganiya, aged about 2 years,

¶9

{é w\ @

¶10

Respondent no. 2 to 5 minor through their natural guardian mother Smt. Dushila Parganiya, All are resident of Village Deorgaon, Post Karnji, District Bastar C.G. (Respondent no. 1 to 5 ) 6/Banshi Thakur S/o Niranjan Thakur, aged about 27 years, R/o Anuppur, Chitrakot Road, Dadabada Para, Post Dharampura, District Bastar C.G.

¶11

(Respondent^no.6)

¶12

REVIEW PETITION OF ORDER DATED 20.07.2011 PASSED IN M.A. {Cl No. 232/2g06, PARTIES BEING AUTO INSURANCE KINETIC FINANCE LTD. VS. SMT. DUSHILA

¶13

PARGANIYA AND OTHERS”

¶14

HIGH COURT 9F CHHATTI8GARH AT BILASPUR REVIEW PETITION N0. 1612612

¶15

APPLICANT

¶16

Auto In$uranCE Kitmtjc Finance Ltd. ,

¶17

Vs.

¶18

NON-APPLICmTS Smt. Dushila Parganiya and. othérg.

¶19

REVISIOK PETITIG OF ORDER DATED 2007%011 PA$SED IN M.A.{C} N0. 23212006

¶20

DB: Hon’ble Dr. L M. Quddusi & Hon’ble shri G. Minhajuddln, JJ.

¶21

Present: Shri Rakash Panfley anti Shn' Dashrath Pxajapati, counsel for the app}icant.

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

{Pasged^{an01“daycf March,2012}}

¶24

Per Dr. I. M. Quddusi, J.

¶25

Healwi 0n LA. No.0 1, appHcatjon for condonation of Chiay in filing the review petition.

¶26

Th1$ petition seeking review of m6 outer datcci 26-07—201 1 in M.A.{C) N9232f2006 haS bean filed by the passed appteilaxzt/ Insm‘ance Company.

¶27

This review petition is barred by 151 days. The applicant/review petitioner has expkained the delay only to the eifect that they sought opinion from the Advocates of Supreme Court as well as The High Courts. Anyway, we ale not on the ‘m technical gmunc‘l rejection of the concionation of delay, therefore, in the interest of justice, we condone the delay in ming the review petition.

¶28

The question of liabiiity of the Leview petitioner was not pressed by the learned counsel in appeai. On perusing the cimular of the Insurance Regulatory And Development Authority dated lé—li—2039 in which it is mentioned that the insurer’s liability in respect of Occupant. of a private car and pillion rider in a two wheeler is oovemd umiei‘ Stanciard Motor Package Policy which is also callecl as Comprehensive Policy and all the general insuiers weie advised to adheie to the circular and in the said

¶29

umulzu it was mentiormd that^“tha Authority vidé circuiar No. 066/IRDA/ F&U/ Mar—O8 dated March 26, 2008 issuer} Imam" File {k Use Guidelines has reiterated that pending further ondws the insurers shail not vary the coverage, ierms anti conditions, wordiugs, warranties, clauses, ami andmsements in respect of covers that were under the erstwhjie tariffs. Further, the Autlmrity vide Cimulm‘ No.019/iRDAfNL/F&U;’ Oct~§8 riated November O6, 2008 has mamiated that insurers. are not permitted to abridge the scope of sfandard covers available wider the ereiwhile iariffs b'y’nd the options permitted^m the emtwhile tariEs It was $80 mentioneri that any non—compiieulce of the same would be viewed serimlsiy by the authoritv.

¶30

The instant review petition has been filed on the ground that the deceased. was a pilijml ridier anti mime-x of two Wheeler his risk was not covered. Therefore, the liabiiity cannot be fastened upon the review petitioner and the owner] ineured himeeif being the claimant is not covered anti cannot Chaim compensation as he does not come in the purview of third party for the purpose of deciding the lie under Section 165(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act.

¶31

The iirst. thing is that 1earned counsel for the appellant did not press the point of liability. Once this ground was not pressetl by the learnerl counsel for the review petitioner, in the appeal, it is not now open for him to press that point by wing the review petition. Further, the insurance policy^was a comprehensive policy^{andthedeceasedwasa} pillion^ricler. His claim could not have been, denier}. because he was the owner of the vehicie. in View of the circular of Insurance Regulatory And Development Authority, in which it has not been mentioned that if the pillion ritler would be owner carried in two wheeler, he woulci be denied compensation and will be discriminated amongst other pillion riders in case of death Who are not the owner of the two Wheeler. It is not a case of Section 163—A of the Motor Vehicles Act. in thet case, the owner cannot claim compensation from himself and, therefore, the claim petition^underSection 163—A wouid not he maintainable in View of the judgment of Hon’bie the Supreme Court in the matter of Deepa! Girishbhai Sam and Others vs. United India insurance Co. Ltd., Baroda, reported in (2&04) 5

¶32

¶33

But^{inthCinstantcase,i116claimpetitionwas$ed} SCC^385. under^{Section166oftheMotorVehiclesActandtheinsurance} The^{(leceasexlwasapilliou} policy^{wasacomprehtnsivepaHcy.} '13 also noticed that in aampmhensive^insurance rider. Further^it pdlicy^{ayartfmmthecincularoftheinsuranceRegnlamryAnd} tlm the: review patitionar^hasrammed Authority, 5evelopment compulsory^{RA.of Rs.50] -fmmtheimmrerlLe.deceased.}

¶34

aypears for 7. in View of the above, no good ground

¶35

éismiSse‘i‘ 1 sdl— ‘ a t _ GfMinhaiuddin ' Sdl_ I j Judge ' i ,LM. QuddusiA A; 1 Judge Kvr

¶36

J‘s

Auto Insurance Kinetic Finance Ltd. v. Smt. Dushila Parganiya and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Auto Insurance Kinetic Finance Ltd. v. Smt. Dushila Parganiya and Ors.

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

State Vs Nahru

Bajaj Allianz General Insurnce Co. Vs Amit Kumar and Ors.

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Vs Arundhati Bai and Ors.

Leeladhar Prasad Chandrakar Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Sarju Prasad Dansena and Ors. Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Sachichidanand Joshi Vs Chhattisgarh Lok Aayog and Anr.