Dismissed

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Smt. Maheshwari and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC11 Aug 2023MAC/513/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court through an order dismissed the insurance company's miscellaneous appeals against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award. The court held that since the insurer did not plead or prove that the vehicle was used for carrying passengers, no permit was required, and liability remained with the insurer.

What did the court decide?

Appeals dismissed; liability of Insurance Company for compensation to accident victims upheld.

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Smt… — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

NAFR

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Miscellaneous Appeal (C) No.511 of 2015

¶3

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Through Branch Manager, Divisional Office In Front Of Adarsh Bal Mandir, Behind Amar Talkies, Dhamtari, Tahsil And District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh

¶4

---- Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

Parmeshwar S/o Shatrughan Nirmalkar Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Limtara, Tahsil And District- Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh

¶7

Kapoor Ram Soni, S/o Tilakram Soni, R/o Baniyapara Dhamtari, Tahsil and District Dhamtari (dead)

¶8

Dinesh Kumar S/o Shri Bhansingh Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Chatod, Tahsil Kurud, District- Dhamtari, Chhattisgah, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

¶9

Ramnarayan Pandey S/o Shri Chunwaad Parasad Pandey Aged About 44 Years R/o Jail Road, Bathena Para Dhamtari, Tahsil And District- Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

¶10

---- Respondents

¶11

AND

¶12

Miscellaneous Appeal (C) No.513 of 2015

¶13

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Through Branch Manager, Divisional Office, In Front Of Adarsh Bal Mandir, Behind Amar Talkies, Dhamtari, Tahsil And District Dhaamtari Chhattisgarh

¶14

---- Appellant

¶15

Versus

¶16

Smt. Maheshwari W/o Late Ganeshwar Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Limtara, Tahsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh

¶17

Shatrughan S/o Shri Jhururam Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Limtara, Tahsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh , District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

¶18

Radha W/o Shatrughan Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Limtara, Tahsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh , District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

¶19

Dinesh Kumar S/o Shri Bhan Singh Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Chatod, Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh , District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

¶20

Ram Narayan Pandey S/o Shri Chunwaad Prasad Pandey Aged About 44 Years R/o Jail Road Bathenapara Dhamtari Tahsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisagrh, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

¶21

---- Respondents

¶22

_____________________________ For Insurance Company For Respondents No.1 to 3 (MAC No.511/15)	____________________________ : Mr. Anumeh Shrivastava and Mr. Akash Shrivastava, Advocates : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate
For Respondents (MAC No.511/15)	: Mr. Ashwell Franklin, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Samir Singh, Advocate

¶23

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel

¶24

Order On Board

¶25

11/08/2023

¶26

Both the appeals have arisen out of award dated 31.01.2015, passed by Additional Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (FTC), Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Claims Tribunal'), therefore, the same are deciding by this common order.

¶27

Facts of the cases are that on 30.10.2011, around 2:30 PM, deceased Ganeshwar was traveling with his younger brother Parmeshwar in his motor cycle bearing Registration No.CG 05 C 4110 and when they reached near C.G. Rice Mills, Village Sambalpur, they were hit by a jeep bearing Registration No. CG 05 ZA 2028 (hereinafter referred to as 'the offending vehicle'),

¶28

which was driven by driver Kapoor Ram Soni who was driving the offending vehicle rashly and negligently due to that Ganeshwar died on spot and Parmeshwar received grievous injuries. Legal heirs of Ganeshwar filed a claim petition which was registered as claim case No.13/13 and injured Parmeshwar filed a separate claim petition which was registered as claim case No.14/13 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Claims Tribunal.

¶29

After recording the evidence of both parties and after hearing learned Counsels appearing for the parties, the Claims Tribunal has passed a common order dated 31.01.2015 and passed an award of Rs.28,429/- in favour of injured Parmeshwar and also passed an award of Rs. 4,43,000/- in favour of legal heirs of Ganeshwar and fastened the liability on Insurance Company. Hence, these appeals have been preferred by the Insurance Company.

¶30

Learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submits that at the time of accident, the offending vehicle was used as passenger carrying vehicle and at the time of incident, no permit and fitness was available in the offending vehicle, therefore, there was a breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Hence, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation. Further, as the Insurance Company has pleaded in its written statement that no permit and fitness was available in the offending vehicle and the driver/owner of the offending vehicle was required to prove that the vehicle had permit and fitness but, no evidence has been produced by the driver/owner of the offending vehicle in this regard before the Claims Tribunal and the Claims Tribunal has wrongly fastened the liability on Insurance Company and passed the impugned award.

¶31

Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents/Claimants submit that there was no pleading by the Insurance Company that the offending vehicle was used as passenger carrying

¶32

vehicle at the time of accident, therefore, necessity of permit was not required. Hence, the Claims Tribunal has rightly fastened the liability on Insurance Company.

¶33

I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire material available on record with utmost circumspection.

¶34

On careful perusal of the written statement submitted by the Insurance Company shows that there was no pleading by the Insurance Company that at the time of accident the offending vehicle was used as passenger carrying vehicle and passengers were traveling in the offending vehicle. It also appears that none of the witnesses have stated anything in this regard. Therefore, it is well established that there was no pleading by the Insurance Company that the offending vehicle was used as passenger carrying vehicle and at the time of accident passengers were seated in the offending vehicle. Therefore, necessity of permit was not required. Thus, the Claims Tribunal has rightly fastened the liability on the Insurance Company.

¶35

I do not find any merits in these appeals and the same are liable to be and are hereby dismissed.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

(Arvind Singh Chandel) Judge

¶38

Shubham

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Smt. Maheshwari and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Smt. Maheshwari 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 Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs Ku. Archana And Ors.

Ku. Archana and Ors. Vs Basant Gupta and Anr.

Smt. Indiya Bai Vs Gajendra Kumar

Mukhdev Ram Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kavita Sahu Vs Krishna Kumar

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Parmeshwar and Ors.