Allowed

Manik Lal Dhruve v. Ifko Tokyo General Insurance Company Limited

Chhattisgarh HC3 Dec 2021MAC/804/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment allows an appeal filed by heirs of a deceased motor cyclist against an insurance company. The High Court held that since the company admitted contractual liability of Rs. 1,00,000 but failed to discharge the burden of proving the deceased lacked a valid license, the claimants are entitled to the sum.

What did the court decide?

Directors of the Insurance Company to pay Rs. 1,00,000 along with 9% interest per annum from the date of claim application.

Manik Lal Dhruve Vs Ifko Tokyo General… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Chhattisgarh HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶2

Order Sheet

¶3

MAC No.804 of 2017

¶4

Manik Lal Dhruve and another Versus Ifko-Tokyo General Insurance Company

¶5

03/12/2021	Mr.Amiyakant Tiwari, counsel for the appellants.
	Mr.Vaibhav Dhar Diwan, counsel appears on behalf of the respondent. Though the matter is listed for hearing on admission, but with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is heard finally. Final order passed separately. Signed and dated. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge
B/-

¶6

¶7

NAFR

¶8

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶9

MAC NO.804 of 2017

¶10

1. Manik Lal Dhruve, aged about 45 years, S/o Late Santu Singh Dhruve

¶11

2. Smt.Rupa Dhruve W/o Manik Lal Dhruve, aged about 42 years
Both R/o Village Jhapul (Manoharpur) Tahsil Bichhiya,
District Mandla (MP)

¶12

---- Appellants/Claimants

¶13

Versus

¶14

Ifko-Tokyo General Insurance Company Limited, through
Departmental Officer, Ifko-Tokyo General Insurance Company
office at 205, M.M. Silver Mall, Ring Road No.1, Near
Khanij Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur (CG)

¶15

---- Respondent

¶16

For Appellants:Mr.Amiyakant Tiwari, Advocate
For Respondent:Mr.Vaibhav Dhar Diwan, Advocate appears on
 behalf of Mr.P.R.Patankar, Advocate

¶17

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order on Board

¶18

03/12/2021

¶19

1. Mr.Salik Ram Dhruve, owner of motor-cycle bearing registration No.C.G. 04 HM 7093, died in accident on 24.10.2014 and thereafter his parents being legal representatives filed an application under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter called as 'Act

¶20

of 1988') claiming compensation of ₹ 1,00,000/- from the respondent Insurance Company, which was dismissed by the learned Claims Tribunal holding that Shalik Ram Dhruve while driving the offending vehicle on 24.10.2014 fell down from the vehicle and suffered grievous injuries and died and the vehicle was being plied with violation of terms of the insurance policy as he did not have a valid

¶21

¶22

and effective driving license to drive the offending
vehicle, therefore, the parents / claimants are not
entitled for compensation, against which, this appeal
under Section 173 of the Act of 1988 has been filed.

¶23

2. Mr.Amiyakant Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellants / claimants, would submit that extra premium has been paid covering the owner to the extent of ₹ 1,00,000/- only and the Insurance Company has failed to prove that the deceased did not have a valid and effective license to drive the offending vehicle. Therefore, the claimants would be entitled for ₹ 1,00,000/- in the line of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Rajni Devi and others 1 being contractual liability.

¶24

3. On the other hand, Mr.Vaibhav Dhar Diwan, learned counsel for the respondent, would oppose the submission and submit that the Claims Tribunal has rightly rejected the claim of the claimants.

¶25

4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection.

¶26

5. In the statement before the Court, Law Officer Navin Soni, who has been examined on behalf of the Insurance Company, has clearly admitted that there was contractual insurance and by contractual insurance, premium of ₹ 50/- has been paid and therefore, contractual liability of the insurance

¶27

company is ₹ 1,00,000/-, but since there was non-compliance of

¶28

1 (2008) 5 SCC 736

¶29

¶30

terms of insurance policy and the owner did not have a
valid and effective license, therefore, claimants are not
entitled for the said amount. The Claims Tribunal has also
recorded a finding that the owner / Shalik Ram Dhruve did
not have a valid and effective license to drive the
vehicle. Though the plea has been taken by the Insurance
Company that the owner did not have a valid and effective
license to drive the offending vehicle, but no such
evidence was led except self-serving statement of Navin
Soni, who has simply stated that notice for production of
driving license was served under Section 134 of the Act of
1988 read with Rule 220 of the Chhattisgarh Motor Vehicles
Rules, 1994, but it could not be produced and therefore,
adverse inference has to be drawn against the claimants.

¶31

The Insurance Company has taken a plea that the owner /
Shalik Ram Dhruve did not have a valid and effective
license to drive the offending vehicle. Therefore, it is
their liability to plead and prove that the deceased owner
did not have a valid and effective license and therefore,
contractual liability cannot be granted to the claimants,
which the Insurance Company miserably failed. Self-serving
statement of law officer Navin Soni would not serve any
purpose as nothing has been brought on record to
demonstrate that the deceased did not have a valid and
effective driving license to drive the offending vehicle.

¶32

6. The Supreme Court in the matter of Rajni Devi (supra) has held as under:-

¶33

¶34

“7. It is now a well-settled principle of law that
in a case where third party is involved, the
liability of the insurance company would be
unlimited. Where, however, compensation is claimed
for the death of the owner or another passenger of
the vehicle, the contract of insurance being
governed by the contract qua contract, the claim
of the insurance company would depend upon the
terms thereof. The Tribunal, in our opinion,
therefore, was not correct in taking the view that
while determining the amount of compensation, the
only factor which would be relevant would be
merely the use of the motor vehicle.”

¶35

10. The liability under Section 163-A of the Act
is on the owner of the vehicle as a person cannot
be both, a claimant as also a receipient. The
heirs of Janakraj could not have maintained a
claim in terms of Section 163-A of the Act. For
the said purpose only the terms of the contract of
insurance could be taken recourse to.

¶36

12. According to the terms of contract of
insurance, the liability of the Insurance Company
was confined to Rs 1,00,000 (Rupees one lakh
only). It was liable to be said extent and not any
sum exceeding the said amount.”

¶37

7. Reverting to the facts of the present case in light of principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court in Rajni Devi (supra), it is quite vivid that since the contractual liability of ₹ 1,00,000/- is admitted by the Insurance Company, therefore, the appellants / claimants would be entitled for ₹ 1,00,000/- along with 9% interest per annum from the date of making the claim application till the date of actual payment. It is ordered accordingly.

¶38

8. The MAC is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s).

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

 (Sanjay K.Agrawal)
 Judge

¶41

B/-

Manik Lal Dhruve v. Ifko Tokyo General Insurance Company Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manik Lal Dhruve v. Ifko Tokyo General Insurance Company Limited

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

Vimal Bachhad And Anr. Vs Ramlal And Ors.

Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Company Limited Vs Shiv Balak And Ors.

Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Company Limited Vs Shiv Balak And Ors.

Bhaiyalal Vs Lavan Singh

I C I C I Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Umendra Sahu and others

Ashutosh Pandey Vs State of Chhattisgarh