Dismissed

Chandan Singh v. Manrakhan Dhritlahare

Chhattisgarh HC23 Nov 2023MAC/395/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's award dismissing the owner and driver. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's award upheld. The Learned Tribunal's finding that the vehicle was used for hire purposes was viewed as based on proper appreciation of evidence over the owner's denial.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed; compensation of Rs. 89,745 awarded in favour of the claimant.

Chandan Singh Vs Manrakhan Dhritlahare — Insurance | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

MAC No. 395 of 2017

¶5

Chandan Singh S/o Harishankar Singh, Aged About 28 Years R/o Nirmala Singh, Kanha Vihar, Balodabazar, Tahsil And P.S. Balodabazar, District BalodabazarBhatapara, Chhattisgarh ..............Owner

¶6

Kishore Kumar Verma S/o Ujjain Verma, Aged About 19 Years R/o Bhadrapali, P.S. City Kotwali Balodabazar, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh ...............Driver

¶7

---- Appellants

¶8

Versus

¶9

Manrakhan Dhritlahare S/o Dataram Dhritlahare, Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Charoda, P.S. Kasdol, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh................Claimant

¶10

The New India Insurance Company Limited, Civil Line Balodabazar, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh

¶11

---- Respondents

¶12

For Appellants	: Ms. Prachi Singh, Advocate
For respondent No.1	: None though served.
For Respondent No.2	: Shri Anil Gulati, Advocate

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput

¶14

Order On Board

¶15

23/11/2023

¶16

This appeal has been filed against impugned award dated 26/10/2016 passed in Motor Accident Claim case No.10/2016 by the 3^rd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balodabazar, District– Balodabazar, Chhattisgarh. By the impugned award, learned Tribunal awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.89,745/- in favour of the claimant on account of injury sustained by him in an accident that took place on 23/12/2015 by rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle Bolero bearing registration No.CG – 22 AB – 2654 by appellant No.2, owned by appellant No.1 and insured with respondent No.2. The claimant claimed total compensation of Rs.3,49,972/-.

¶17

While allowing application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act filed by respondent No.1 / claimant, learned Tribunal directed that the amount of compensation shall be paid by the insurance company / respondent No.2 and

¶18

¶19

thereafter, recover the same from the appellants herein holding that on the date of incident, the offending vehicle was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. Learned Tribunal gave a finding that on the date of incident, the offending vehicle was being used for hire purposes and it was being used for carrying passengers by taking rent which is in violation of the insurance policy.

¶20

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal is bad in law. The insurance company was not able to prove its defence and simply because the driver has admitted that the vehicle was being used in rent, it cannot be said that there is violation of the policy. Appellant No.1 has examined himself and stated that he had not given the offending vehicle on rent. Therefore, the finding is perverse and is liable to be set aside.

¶21

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the policy has been marked by the appellants themselves and driver has very categorically stated that the vehicle was being used on hire and rent was charged. The statement of the owner cannot be believed because it could be an afterthought in order to avoid payment of compensation. Even otherwise, learned Tribunal has applied doctrine of pay-in-recover, therefore, the interest of the claimant is safe.

¶22

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and perused the records.

¶23

The driver of the offending vehicle was examined and in his cross-examination, he has very categorically stated that on the date of incident, the offending vehicle was used on hire purposes and one person from Maanav Colony was seated in the vehicle after payment of rent and he was taken to Baloda Bazar and during this period, the accident took place. The owner has denied that the vehicle was being used for hire and reward and he did not know that some body is sitting in the vehicle after paying rent. Learned Tribunal based on the above factual scenario came to a categorical finding that the vehicle was being used for commercial purposes by taking rent and decided the issue in favour of the insurance company. The finding recorded by the learned Tribunal is based on proper appreciation of evidence, therefore, the appeal is dismissed.

¶24

Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput ) Judge

¶25

Deepti

Chandan Singh v. Manrakhan Dhritlahare

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandan Singh v. Manrakhan Dhritlahare

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dham Das Bandhe Vs Pawan Kumar Sinha

The New India Insurance Company Private Limited Vs Smt. Sumni Bai

Raj Kumar Kaiwartya Vs Ashwani Patle

Raju Maharaj @ Shailendra Awasthi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Shanti Sing Vs Sachiv, Vijay Jalkshatriya

Commissioner Municipal Corporation Raipur Vs Smt. Shanti Singh