Motor vehicle appeal held without substance as the insurer failed to prove breach of policy conditions; appeal dismissed following precedent.
Appeal dismissed, upholding the Tribunal award of Rs. 1,93,414 to the respondent.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
u,
c -^}
IN THE HON'BLE mGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A.fC) No. OF 2008 r\ fAPPEAL VALUED AT Rs. 1.93.414 /-) ili^jllt ^f APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. 1988
APPELLANT (Non- Applicant No.3) ^ -,l^-"".6^ ,...'?!?-'^.^&"c.:;'^v^'"'. Versus RESPONDENTS :1. (APPLICANT ^ N0.1)
United India Insurance Company Limited., Amar Complex, Jeevan Beema Marg, Pandari, Raipur, Tashsil and District-Raipur (C.G.). (Insurer of Truck No. CG04ZC/2274)
Gopal Sinha, 8/0Shri Khorbahara Sinha, R/0-Behind Dr. Sahu's Bungalow, Ramsagar Para, Raipur (C.G.) Through: Power Of Attomey holder-Satpal Singh Gurudatta, S/o-Harbhajan Singh Gurudatta, aged-32 years, R/o-Stationpara, Mahasamund, Distt.Mahasaund (CG)
(NON-APPLICANT :2. Amarjeet Das, S/0- Shri Jaydas, N0.1) s Aged about-32 years, R/0Ramkund, Near Rajkumar College, P.S. Sarswati Nagar, Distt.-Raipur (C.G.) ( Driver of Truck No. C.G.04-Z.C./2274) (NON-APPLICANT :3. M/S Paras Oil Construction Ltd. N0.2) ") Ganjpara , Raipur (C.G.) (Owner of Truck No. C.G.04Z.C./2274) (NON-APPLICANT :4. Manager/ The New India N0.4) Assurance Co. Ltd., Madina Building, Kuchery Chowk, Raipur
^9
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
SB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Pritinker Diwaker
M.A.(C) No. 1250/2008
APPELLANT
United India Insurance Company Limited
VERSUS
RESPONDENZS
Gopal Sinha & others
Mr. Dashrath Gupta counsel for the appellant. None for respondent No. 1 .
Mr. Vivek Chopra counsel for respondent No. 2 & 3. Mr. Shivendu Pandya counsel for respondent No. 4.
ORDER
(06.03.2014)
This appeal arises out of award dated 09.05.2008 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short "the Tribunal") in Claim Case No. 07/2007 awarding compensation of Rs. 1,93,414/in favour of respondent No.l/claimant towards the damages of the vehicle i.e. minibus.
^
...^r':/•'' .'•^;"'^
.sy
-^--
of vehicle - minibus claiming compensation of Rs.7,40,000/- inter alia on the ground that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving ofthe offending vehicle i.e. truck as a resultof which minibus was damaged and therefore he was entitled to get compensation of Rs. 7,40,000.
Counsel for the appellant makes the following submissions: (i) that driver of the offending vehicle i.e. truck was holder of licence of Light Motor Vehicle (for short the "LMV") and was not authorized to drive truck and therefore liability cannot be fastened on the Insurance Company to satisfy the claim;
that endorsement in the licence authorizing the driver to (ii) drive Heavy Goods Vehicle (for short the "HGV") was made 66 days after the accident and as such the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation;
that the accident had occurred on account of rash and (iii) negligent driving of the driver of minibus and therefore if any claim is to be made, it would be by the insurer of theminibus and not by the insurer of the truck.
Supporting the impugned award it has been argued by the
r
^'^
f
-3-
counsel for the respondents that the same has been passed strictly in accordance with law and there is no infirmity in the same. Counsel for the respondents have drawn the attention of this Court to the order of this Court dated 17.12.2013 passed in MA (C) No. 120/2008 and four other connected appeals submitting that in the injury and death case arising out of the same accident the appeals preferred by the Insurance Company have already been dismissed and the facts of the present case and those five appeals are identical.
r
•^
-^-
Company not only by making specific pleading but also giving legally admissible evidence. Further, in 18 of the paragraph impugned awards the Tribunal has also given the reference of previous cases decided by it in a death and injury case.
Sd/Pritinker Diwakar Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the insurance company is liable to satisfy the claim when the driver holds an invalid licence, noting that the company failed to prove breach of policy conditions.
Whether the order can be dismissed by following guidelines where identical appeals arising from the same accident have already been dismissed.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Narinva V. Kamat and another vs. Alfredo Antonio Doe Martins and othersReferred¶47
Narinva V. Kamat and another vs. Alfredo Antonio Doe Martins and others reported in (1985) 2 SCC 574 · Who else cites this
United India Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Lehru and othersReferred¶47
United India Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Lehru and others reported in (2003) 3 SCC 338 · Who else cites this
National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Swaran SinghReferred¶47
National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh reported in (2004) 3 SCC 297 · Who else cites this
Pepsu Road Transport Corpn. vs. National Insurance CompanyReferred¶47
Pepsu Road Transport Corpn. vs. National Insurance Company reported in 2013 (10) Scale 663
S. lyyapan vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd and anotherReferred¶47
S. lyyapan vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd and another reported in 2013 ACJ 1944
1 provisions across 1 enactments
United India Insurance Company Limited
Gopal Sinha
Pritinker Diwaker
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
