Dismissed

Premlal Sahu v. Dhirja Bai Sahu and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC10 Mar 2014MAC/1226/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this miscellaneous appeal filed by an owner under Section 173-A, the High Court of Chhattisgarh upheld the Tribunal's award of Rs.11,172 to a minor injured passenger. The Court rejected the appellant's claim, confirming the Tribunal was correct in exonerating the insurance company due to non-payment of premium for passengers and validating the compensation quantum.

What the court decided

AI extract

Premlal Sahu Vs Dhirja Bai Sahu and Ors. — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

^. ^,

¶3

^^^^^^:a^s^^^^^^^;F:^^3.<

¶4

^llliBench IN THE HIGH COURTOF JU&ICATURE XT BlLASPURft:.6.) fl]/

¶5

MISC APPEAL fC)NO.j'?'2^ OF2010

¶6

^PPELLANT:

¶7

NON-CLAIMAINT

¶8

'Premlal Sdhu^S/o Budhrdm Sahu, aged about 28 yedrs, r/o. Village— Bhakhra, Thdna - Bhakhara.Tahsil—Kurud, Distt.- t)hamtari, (C.6.)

VERSUS

c"-*'

^^••'

RESPONDENTS: CLAIMANT >^

¶13

\° ../-^"
i-^V ^•t<^.-'"
^..^p^-^
^" o.
s§^'^

¶14

t)hirjq Bai Sahy W/o. ShriBrijlal Sphu aged about 55 years.r/o. VillageBhakhra, Thana - Bhakhara.Tahsil - Kurud, Distt.-Dhamtari, (C.G.)

¶15

Nirmal Kumar Maheshwari S/o. Kishan Maheshwan', aged about 40 years, r/o. Village - Bhakhra, Thana - Bhdkhara.Tahsil - Kurud.&istf-Ohamtari, (C.6.)

¶16

The Oriental Insurance Compdny Ltd. Through Branch Manager, Office Adarsh Bal Mandir, Near Panjab'i Gurudwara. Dhamtan', Tdhsi 1 and bjstt.- Dhamtari (C.G.)

¶17

MEMORAN&UM OFMISCAPPEAL UNDERSECTtON 1730FMOTOR VEHICLESACT,

¶18

¶19

HIGH COURT QF CHHAmSGARMATBILASPUR

¶20

SB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Pritinker Diwaker

¶21

M.A.(C)No.1226 of 2010

Appellant

Premlal Sahu

VERSUS

Respondents Dhirja Bai Sahuand others

¶26

Present:

¶27

Shri Sunil Sahu, counsel for the appellant.

¶28

Shri H.P. Agrawal, counsel for respondent No.3.

ORDER

(1 Oth March, 2014)

Heard on admission.

This appeal has been preferred by the owner against the award dated 20.10.2010 passed by Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Dhamtari (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") in claim case No.30/10 awarding compensation of Rs.11,172/- in favour of the injured-claimant fastening the liability upon the appellant/owner and driver of the vehicle, while exonerating the insurance company of its liability.

¶33

Facts of the case in brief are that on 26.4.2009 when Smt. Dhirja Bai (injured-claimant/respondent No.1 herein) alpng with her family members was travelling in a jeep bearing registration No. C.G.04 ZD 0960, on accountof rash and negligent driving of its driver Nirmal Kumar Maheshwari, respondent No.2 herein,the said vehicle turned turtle resulting in minor injuries to Smt. Dhirja Bai.

¶34

A claim case was filed by respondentNo.l/claimant for compensation of Rs.80,000/- before the Tribunal under various heads. However, afterappreciating the evidence on record, the Tribunal bythe impugned award granted a total compensation of Rs.11,172/- in favour

¶35

/'.,•' K'Y.. ^ 's^:.

¶36

¶37

of the claimant, fastening liability upon the driver and owner of the vehicle, while exonerating the insurance company.

¶38

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the insurance company has wrongly been exonerated of its liability by the Tribunal and further, as the treating doctor has not proved the injuries allegedly sustained by the claimant in the said accident, no compensation could have been awarded by the Tribunal in favour of the claimant.

¶39

On the other hand, supporting the award impugned it has been argued by learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 that the Tribunal was fully justified in exonerating the insurance company of its liability because no premium was paid by the appellant/owner to the insurance company for covering the risk of passengers. The vehicle in question was insured as a private vehicle whereas on the date of accident, the same was being used for carrying passengers and as such, on account ofthere being breachof terms and conditionsof the insurance policy, the liability has rightly been fastened upon the owner of the vehicle. He further submits that only a meager amount of Rs.11,172/- has been awarded by the Tribunal based on medical documents submitted by the daimant.

¶40

Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the award impugned.

¶41

¶42

Undisputedly, no premium was paid by the appellant/owner to the insurance company for covering the risk of passengers travelling in the. vehicle in question and therefore, the Tribunal has rightly exonerated the insurance company of it liability on this ground alone.

¶43

As regards quantum of compensation, the Tribunal placing reliance upon the medical documents (Ex.P/10, P/12 to 24) has assessed the medical expenses incurred by the claimant to the tune of Rs.4,172/and further, has awarded Rs.5,000/towards pain & suffering and Rs.2,000/towards special diet. Thus, a total

¶44

¶45

aSpnf JB5[BAYI(I JBqUpUd -/PS •9UILUII ^J u; pessiujsip Aqejsq si pue eq 0} siqeii si aoueisqns Aue inoqtjM 6ui3q lesdde eqi 'ijnoo SIL)} Aq.eousjsjjeiui BUIIUEJJEM peu6ndLui PJEME eqi ui Aiisja/uad jo Ai!|e6a|ti ou puy | 'suoseej pressjo^e eq) joj 'oi.

¶46

•lunouje siqi jo^ paiwus Aisiiuyap si lueiuieio eq} pue eAisssoxe se paujjs} sq iou ueo uoiiEuiBeLui p 40^15 Aue Aq '91111} iueA9|8J aqi te eedm ^o sn|eA aqi pue jaq Aq peuieisns seunfui .(Q ejnieu 9L|i 'IUELUIEIO eqt Aq peonppe eouspiAe 941 0} BU!>|OO| qoiqM '}ueLuiep 341 jo jnoAej ui leunqui eqi Aq papjeME ueeq seq -/zzi.'l.l.'sy jo uoiiesuedLuoo

¶47

^""ae;,

¶48

Premlal Sahu v. Dhirja Bai Sahu and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Premlal Sahu v. Dhirja Bai Sahu and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suryakant Gupta Vs Deputy Labour Commissioner And Ors.

Universal Sompo General Insurance Co.ltd. Vs Smt.Tiloka Bai And Ors.

Rajesh Stripe Ltd. Vs Raipur Ferro Alloys Pvt. Ltd.

Sushil Kumar Gupta and Another Vs Smt.Chanda Bai Pahadi and Others

Bhagirathi Gupta Vs Kanchan Bala Gupta

Sidhram Marar Vs Lakesh Sahu and Anr.