Allowed

Ashish Kumar v. Ashwani Kumar and Others

Chhattisgarh HC6 Jan 2013MA/1100/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Bench of the High Court of Chhattisgarh in an appeal under Section 173 held that the Tribunal erred in exonerating the insurance company. The court ruled the insurer is jointly and severally liable with the driver and owner for a passenger's death in an accident involving rash driving, as the policy covered such risk.

What did the court decide?

The finding of exoneration of respondent No. 3 (Insurance Company) was set aside. The Insurance Company is held liable jointly and severally with driver and owner to pay compensation.

Ashish Kumar Vs Ashwani Kumar and Others — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2013)

¶1

/ l llllllllll Illlllll FE E;' CF0000043224 “9% ‘ l \li)l‘\i E VA/ C§ :HIGI-I IN 1THE COURT OF JUDICATURE AT :¥ JABAEIJUR No. Noli0@ 01? 199E “M.A. APPELLANT a AEHISH^{3/G‘AYOGENDRANATH} PANDIT, gsED " E.A.No. 1 27 YEARS, R/o J. 8 RAMNAGAR, CIVIL ¢ LINES , RAIPUR . VS. RE S PONDE N'l‘S u l. ASHWANI KUMAR, S/O SHRI VISHNU PD. £— GUP'I‘A AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, ADVOCATE DISTT$ BILAbk’UR M” . (CLAIMANT) 2. KISHORE KUMAR NAYYAR,R/o KANCHANGANGL 9 $ APARTMENT NEW SABJI MANmxL INDORE (N.A.N0.2J 3c UNITED INDIA INSURANCE eoMPENY LID. VV %^€ RLGIONAL OFFILL NDORE 'C N£WV1J g‘"w APPEAL UNDER $EC‘I‘ION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT 1988

¶2

HIGH^{COURTQFCHHATTISGARHATBILASPUR}

M.A. N0.^1100OF1999

‘

RESPONDENTS

. and others

APPEAL^{UNDERSECTION173} MOTOR^{VEHICLESACT,1988}

¶8

§ing1e^{Bench:G.Minhajuddin,J.}

¶9

I Agrawal, Appearance: Advocate with Mr. Sanjay Singhai, Ms. Sharmlla for^the appellant. Advocate Advocate^{forrespondentNo.3.} Gupta, Mr.^Dashrath

¶10

ORDER (Passed^{on7—1-2013)}

¶11

This^{appealhasbeenfiledbytheappellantunder} “the^Section Act”) Short, Act, 1988 (for Vehicles 173 0f the Motor by Fourth passed 12.12.1997 dated the award against Additional^{MotorAccidentsClaimsTribunal,Mungeli(forshort,} “the Tribunal”)^{inClaimCaseNo.7/1996,} fromⁱⁿ his^so liability^farasit to^relates pay of the appellant tocompensationexoneration^{awardedbytheTribunalagainsthim.} a^sum of dated 121121997, award 2. By the impugned awarded by the has been with 12% interest Rs.14,000/— of respondent in favour Tribunal as compensation, nt^ofthesame, No.1/claimant,^{fasteningtheliabilityforpayine} jointly,^{andseverally,uponappellantand} of^respondent the Jeep^No.2 bearing^who respectively owner vvere driver and “vehicle in question”) called Registrationand^{afterexoneratingNo.MIU—19respondent(hereinafterNo.3,whowasinsurerofthe} to pay^{compensation.} its^liability f_/u.’ vehicle^{inquestion,from\k}

¶12

¶13

‘ 3. Facts, in brief, are that, on 10.1.1996, respondent No.1/c1aimant was going to Raipur on vehicle in question which was being driven by appellant. At about 4 p.m. on the same day, the vehicle in question had turned turtle, near Siltara, on account of rash and^{negligentdrivingbyappellant.} Resultantly, respondent No.1/claimant^hadsustained grievous bodily injuries for which the respondent No.1/c1aimant had undergone treatment at different^hospitals.

¶14

This gave rise to filing of claim petition, by respondent No.1 /c1airnant, out of^{whichthisappealarises.} 5. The learned counsel^forappellant (driver^{ofthevehiclein} question) has contended that the Tribunal has committed manifest error of law and^{factinexoneratingrespondentNo.3} (insurer of the vehicle in question) from its liability to pay compensation because respondent^No.2 (insured/owner^ofthe vehicle in question) had paid^Rs.200/— for covering the risk of five passengers. The counsel has further contended that respondent No.3—Insurance^{Companyhasbeenunsuccessfulin} establishing that there had been breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel^{forrespondentNo.3} has supported the impugned award so far as its relates to exoneration of respondent No.3—Insurance Company from its liability to pay the awarded^{amountofcompensation.} 7. So far as liability of respondent^{No.3-InsuranceCompany} is concerned, it is not in dispute that the insurance policy (EXD/^{1)wasissuedbyrespondentNo.8—InsuranceCompanyin} favour of respondent No.2 (insured/owner) in respect of the vehicle in question and the^said policy^{wasvalidandeffective} 'of on the date accident. From the perusal of photocopy of insurance policy (Ex.D/1), which is available on record, it is found that the same was issued^fora period^{from17.3.1995to} 16.3.1996. The accident in question had occurred on 10.1.1996. On perusing^{thescheduleof} premium^containedin the insurance policy (EXD/^l), it is found? tglia/ta total amount of

¶15

Rs.505/—^was paid^as premium^{inwhichRs.240/—waspaidas} for Act Only“ Rs.200/for covering the risk of five premium Rs.50/— for third party liability and Rs.15 for passengers, covering^{theriskofdriver.Assuch,respondentNo.1/c1aimant,} who was, at the relevant time, an occupant^ofthe vehicle in was covered under the insurance policy (EX.D/¹⁾ question, which was^{issuedbyrespondentNo.3—lnsuranceCompanyin} favour of^{respondentNo.2-insured/ owner.} 8. So far as^{breachoftermsandconditionsoftheinsurance} having been committed on the part of policy (EXD/l) appellant/driver and respondent No.2/owner/insured is concerned, it is a settled^lawthatfor proving^{thesaidfact,the} burden lies^{uponInsuranceCompany(respondentNo.3herein).} On the^{basisofevidence,} oral and^documentary, available^on record, it cannot be said that respondent No.3-Insurance Company^has been successful in establishing^thattherehad been any breach of terms and conditions of the insurance [(ExD/ 1) committed^onthe part^ofownerand driver of policy the vehicle in question. Mere admission on the part of appellant/driver, before the Criminal Court, regarding^driving of vehicle'in question^ona public^{roadinarashandnegligent} manner, cannot^{absolverespondentNo.3—InsuranceCompany} from its^liabilityto pay^{compensationsofarasitrelatestoany} occupant other than driver is concerned.^The position^would have been different if appellant/driver .had moved a claim for compensation. As such, it is found that the petition Tribunal^has definitely^{committedamanifesterroroflawand} fact in exonerating^{respondentNo.3—InsuranceCompanyfrom} its liability^to pay^{compensationtorespondentNo.1/claimant.} The finding^{recordedbytheTribunal,inthisregard,deservesto} be and is hereby set—aside. Consequently, respondent No.3— Insurance Company is held liable, jointly and severally, alongwith^{appellantandrespondentNo.2,whoweredriverand} owner of the vehicle in question, to pay compensation to Li\‘\ *r respondent^No.1 /^claimant, \\

¶16

¶17

In the result,^{theappealisallowed.Thefindingrecorded} by the Tribunal regarding exoneration of respondent No.3— Insurance Company is hereby set—aside. Resultantly, respondent^{No.3—InsuranceCompanyisheldliable,jointlyand} severally, alongwith appellant/driver and respondent No.2/owner^to pay^{theamountofcompensationtorespondent} No.1/claimant. Rest of the conditions of the^{impugnedaward} shall remain^intact.

¶18

¶19

No costs.

¶20

y \x Sd/— k (;NHNHAnnHHN 1 Judge ##(e; 7/##,#,#T,rf

Ashish Kumar v. Ashwani Kumar and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashish Kumar v. Ashwani Kumar 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

Vinod Kumar Singh Vs Phagu Ram and Others

Smt.Seema Mishra and Others Vs T.Ramaswami and Others

National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Geeta Netam and Others

Mst.Budhwara Bai Vs Basant Kumar Dewangan and Ors.

Naresh Kumar Verma Vs Reliance General Insurance Co,ltd.

Sanjay Kumar Dewangan Anors Vs Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and Ors.