Partly allowed

Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Smt.ramhlabai And Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC15 Feb 2018MAC/748/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal by insurer against Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award. Court finds liability unjustified but insurer deposited money per earlier order. Appeal partly allowed; principal awarded 50% to claimants; insurer granted liberty to recover from vehicle owner via pay-and-recovery principle.

What did the court decide?

Appeal partly allowed and disposed of. Principal amount to be disbursed to claimants with liberty to insurance company to recover same from owner of offending vehicle.

Reliance General Insurance Company… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Chhattisgarh HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

MAC No. 748 of 2012

¶5

Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Rectifier House, Naygam Cross Road, Vadala, West Mumbai, Through.- Its Legal Manager, 4th Floor, Shop No. 412-413, Ravi Bhawan, Jaistambh Chowk, Raipur (CG).

¶6

---- Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Smt.Ramhlabai W/o late Sumeri Thakur, Halba, aged about 30 years.

¶9

Guharam S/o Nand Lal Aged About 60 Years

¶10

Smt. Leela Bai W/o Guha Ram Aged About 58 Years

¶11

Likesh Kumar S/o Sumeri Aged About 8 Years

¶12

Ku. Harshita D/o Sumeri Aged About 6 Years Respondents No.4 &5 Minor Represented through Mother- Ramhla Bai All R/o Village- Jhalmala, P.S. And Tah. Balod, Distt. Durg C.G.

¶13

Lakesh Kumar Dewangan S/o Kanhaiya Dewangan Aged About 21 Years R/o Village- Khari Malighori, P.S. Balod, P.O. Dudhli, Distt. Durg C.G.

¶14

Kailash Kumar Gupta S/o Late- Johan Lal Gupta R/o Jhalmala, P.S. Balod, Distt. Durg C.G.

¶15

---- Respondents

¶16

For Appellant : Shri Sourabh Sharma, Advocate.

¶17

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy

¶18

Judgment On Board

¶19

15.02.2018

¶20

The present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act has been filed by the insurer against the award dated 03.05.2012 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balod (in short, the Tribunal) in Claim Case No.148/2009. Vide the impugned award, the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.4,19,000/- along with interest @ 6 percent per annum from the date of application.

¶21

This is second round of litigation. The Tribunal on an earlier occasion had passed an award on 19.11.2010 which was challenged before the High Court by the insurance company vide MAC No.1065/2011. The appeal of the insurance company was allowed and the award

¶22

¶23

was set aside and the matter was remitted back for a fresh adjudication to determine whether the deceased was travelling on the Truck as labour engaged by the owner or whether the deceased was travelling as an owner or representative of the goods being transported. Subsequent to remittance of the matter, no fresh evidence was led by the claimant to justify their contention or to establish their case as per the order of the High Court in MAC No.1065 of 2011.

¶24

However, the Tribunal again on the same set of evidence have fastened the liability of payment of compensation upon the insurance company indemnifying the owner and the driver of the offending vehicle.

¶25

The contention of the appellant is that the factual matrix of the case which have come on record on the basis of the pleadings of the claimant so also witness examined, both would establish the fact that the deceased in the instant case Sumeri Thakur was not engaged as labour by the owner of the vehicle, but was travelling on the vehicle after purchasing some goods pertaining to the marriage in the family. This was the case of the claimants in the pleadings so also in their evidence. There is no change on the stand of the claimant even after the matter was remitted back by this court vide order dated 17.01.2012 in MAC No.1065 of 2011.

¶26

Under the given facts and circumstances of the case, this court has no hesitation in reaching to the conclusion that the findings of the Tribunal to the extent of fastening liability upon the insurance

¶27

¶28

company does not seem to be proper, legal and justified.

¶29

However, what is pertinent to be taken note of is the fact that after the award was passed, the entire amount as per direction of this court, has been deposited before the Tribunal and of which 50 percent of the awarded amount has already been ordered to be disbursed to the claimants.

¶30

Under the given factual matrix of the case, considering the claim case to be of the year, 2009 and the award to be of the year, 2012, this court is of the opinion that ends of justice would meet if the appeal is disposed of applying the principle of “Pay and Recovery”.

¶31

Accordingly, the liability of the appellant-insurance company to pay compensation to the claimant is held to be unjustified. Since, the entire amount has already been deposited by the insurance company, the same may be disbursed to the claimants with liberty to the insurance company to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle.

¶32

The appeal stands partly allowed and disposed of.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

(P.Sam Koshy) Judge

¶35

inder

Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Smt.ramhlabai And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Smt.ramhlabai And Ors.

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

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Rajesh Panda and Ors.

Smt. Mangala Bai Katre and Anr. Vs Vikash Singh and Ors.

Bheneswari Sahu Vs Mukesh Singh And Ors.

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Narsingh Usare and Anr.

Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Geeta Bai and Ors.

Laxmi Nidhi Patel Vs Basanti Bai Gabel And Ors.