Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited Vs Pannalal

¶1

1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

MAC No. 1011 of 2015

¶5

Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited Divisional Office, Ramplaza, Near New Bus Stand, Bilaspur At Present- Raj Chamber, Near Over-Bridge, Mova, Pandri, Police Station Pandri, Civil And Revenue District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶6

---- Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Smt. Sumitra Bai W/o Late Nanki Ram Pradhan Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Kumhari, Police Station Bilaigarh, Tahsil Kasdol, Civil And Revenue District Balodabazar, Chhattisgarh

¶9

Ashok Kumar S/o Late Nanki Ram Pradhan Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Kumhari, Police Station Bilaigarh, Tahsil Kasdol, Civil And Revenue District Balodabazar, Chhattisgarh

¶10

Arun Kumar S/o Late Nanki Ram Pradhan Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Kumhari, Police Station Bilaigarh, Tahsil Kasdol, Civil And Revenue District Balodabazar, Chhattisgarh (Claimants)

¶11

Vinod Kumar S/o Ghanshyam Prasad Sahu Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Hasuwa, Police Station Bilaigarh, Tahsil Kasdol, Civil And Revenue District Balodabazar, Chhattisgarh (Driver)

¶12

Arjun Prasad S/o Punaram Kaiwart Aged About 44 Years R/o Village Hasuwa, Police Station Bilaigarh, Tahsil Kasdol, Civil And Revenue District Balodabazar, Chhattisgarh (Owner)

¶13

---- Respondents

¶14

For Appellant : Mr. H. Rastogi, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. N. K. Thakur, Advocate For Respondent Nos.4 & 5: Mr. Rajendra Patel, Advocate

¶15

MAC No. 1032 of 2015

¶16

Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited Divisional Office, Ramplaza, Near New Bus Stand, Bilaspur At Present- Raj Chamber, Near Over bridge, Mova, Pandri, Police Station Pandri, Civil And Revenue Dist. Raipur, Chhattisgarh

---- Appellant

Versus

2

Pannalal S/o Pyarelal Pradhan Aged About 45 Years R/o Vill. Kumhari, Police Station Bilaigarh, Tahsil Kasdol, Civil And Revenue Dist. Balodabazar, Chhattisgarh (Claimant)

¶21

Vinod Kumar S/o Ghanshyam Prasad, Aged About 23 Years R/o Vill. Hasuwa, Police Station Bilaigarh, Tahsil Kasdol, Civil And Revenue Dist. Balodabazar, Chhattisgarh (Driver)

¶22

Arjun Prasad S/o Punaram Kaiwart Aged About 44 Years R/o Vill. Hasuwa, Police Station Bilaigarh, Tahsil Kasdol, Civil And Revenue Dist. Balodabazar, Chhattisgarh (Owner)

¶23

---- Respondents

¶24

For Appellant

¶25

For Appellant : Mr. H. Rastogi, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. N. K. Thakur, Advocate For Respondent Nos.2 & 3: Mr. Rajendra Patel, Advocate

¶26

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal

¶27

Judgment on Board

¶28

(03.05.2024 )

¶29

1. Both the appeals have been preferred by the Insurance Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the award dated 26.02.2015 passed by 1^st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balodabazar (C.G.), in Claim Case Nos. 108/2013 & 107/2013. Since both the appeals arise out of the same accident, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

¶30

2. MAC No.1011/2015 has been preferred against the award passed in Claim Case No.108/2013 in respect of death of Nanki Ram Pradhan and MAC No.1032/2015 has been preferred against the award passed in Claim Case No.107/2013 by injured claimant Pannalal. Both the appeals have been preferred for exoneration of the Insurance Company from its liability of payment of compensation.

¶31

3. The facts, in brief, necessary for disposal of the present appeals,

¶32

3

¶33

are that on 01.05.2013 between 2:30 to 3:00 in the night, while deceased Nanki Ram and his friend Pannalal were returning to their village Kumhari from Kutighat cattle market, near Kharod ITI National Highway, driver Vinod Kumar driving the offending vehicle i.e. Tata Magic bearing registration No. CG 10C 5144, rashly and negligently, hit them, as a result of which, Nanki Ram Pradhan suffered grievous injuries and died on the spot whereas his friend Pannalal suffered injuries on his waist and other parts of his body, for which, he was admitted in the Hospital for about 11 days. Upon report being made in this regard, crime was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle Vinod Kumar at PS Shivrinarayan, District Janjgir-Champa (CG).

¶34

4. In Claim Case No.108/2013, preferred by the claimants who are wife and children of the deceased Nanki Ram Pradhan, the Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.2,90,000/- with interest @ 7% per annum, from the date of application till its realization, in favour of the claimants for their irreparable loss. In Claim Case No.107/2013 , preferred by injured claimant Pannalal, the Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.1,07,853/with interest @ 7% per annum, from the date of application till its realization, for the injuries suffered by him due to the accident. While passing the impugned awards, the Tribunal has held the owner, driver and insurance company of the offending vehicle jointly or separately liable for payment of compensation. The Tribunal has further held that the first responsibility for payment of compensation will be upon the Insurance Company. It is this fastening of liability of payment of compensation upon the Insurance Company against which the present appeal has been filed praying for exoneration of the liability.

¶35

5. The main contention of learned counsel for appellant is that the offending vehicle was not insured with the appellant insurance

¶36

4

¶37

company on the date of accident as the policy (Ex. NA-3) presented by the owner is a fake policy for which a complaint was also lodged by the appellant to the concerned police station regarding manipulation of the period of insurance policy. However, the Tribunal has not considered it to be a fake policy and fastened the liability of payment of compensation upon the appellant-insurance company. Therefore, learned counsel for appellant prays for allowing both the appeals by exonerating the insurance company from its liability.

¶38

6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for driver and owner (in both cases) opposes the submission made by the counsel for appellant - insurance company and submits that in the facts and circumstances of case, the impugned awards passed by the Claims Tribunal are just and proper and require no interference in the same.

¶39

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the award impugned including the record.

¶40

8. Learned Tribunal, while discussing the issue of fake policy in Para-14 of its judgment, has held that the owner has stated that his vehicle was insured with the appellant through agent Ashish Pandey for the year 22.11.2012 to 21.11.2013 which covered the date of accident and also for the previous year from 27.11.2011 to 26.11.2012. The insurance company witness Vijay Banjare has stated that the policy of previous year was issued by the appellant whereas the policy for the year during which the accident occurred was not issued by the appellant. The Tribunal has held that since Ashish Pandey was the agent of insurance company, there is no reason to disbelieve him and by getting any vehicle insured by an insurance agent, a normal policy holder will always accept it to be true and the owner does not have any such

¶41

5

¶42

technical proof or ability to enquire whether any insurance policy is fake or not. Hence the Tribunal has held that the offending vehicle was duly insured with the appellant when the accident occurred.

¶43

9. The registered owner Arjun Prasad has stated that the policy Ex.NA-4 was issued for the year 2011-12 and policy Ex.NA-3 was issued for the year 2012-2013 during which period the accident occurred. Sales Manager Vijay Banjare has been examined on behalf of the Insurance Company. This witness has stated that the policy Ex. NA-4 was issued by the appellant only for the year 2011-12 in respect of the offending vehicle but the policy Ex. NA3 was not issued by the appellant nor any policy was issued by the appellant in respect of the offending vehicle for the year 201213. He has stated that the policy numbers mentioned in Ex. NA-3 & NA-4 are same i.e. 0249386000100 and only the period of insurance policy is difference. He has stated that the disputed policy Ex. NA-3 presented by the owner is a fake policy, for which a complaint was lodged by the appellant to the concerned police station regarding manipulation of the period of insurance policy.

¶44

10. From the statement of the witness examined on behalf of the insurance company it is clear that the disputed policy is Ex. NA-3 for the period 22.11.2012 to 21.11.2013 since it covers the date of accident i.e. 01.05.2013. It is also clear from the statement of insurance company witness Vijay Banjare that the offending vehicle was insured with the appellant insurance company only for the year 2011-12 but the said vehicle was not insured by the appellant for the year 2012-13. Perusal of Ex. NA3 and NA-4 reflects that same policy number is mentioned in both the policies and it appears that in Ex.NA-3, only the term of the insurance policy has been changed. It is not possible that same policy number for the same vehicle has been issued for two

¶45

6

¶46

different years i.e. 2011-12 and 2012-13. The owner has stated that he had insured his vehicle with the appellant through policy agent Asish Pandy but no receipt in this regard has been brought on record nor has the said agent Ashish Pandey even been examined on behalf of the registered owner. There is no signature of anyone from the insurance company in Ex. NA-3. It is not the case that after getting information about this the owner himself has lodged any report of fake policy, rather the insurance company has made a report in this regard to the concerned PS which is Ex.P-6. It is the burden of the owner to prove the fact that his vehicle was insured with the appellant at the time of accident but in the present case, the owner of the offending vehicle has not been able to prove that under policy Ex.NA-3 his vehicle was insured with the appellant -insurance company when the accident occurred. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the finding/conclusion of the Claims Tribunal regarding liability part is erroneous. Hence, the appellant Insurance Company is exonerated from its liability of payment of compensation.

¶47

11. Accordingly, both the appeals are allowed. Both the impugned awards stand modified only to the extent that the liability of payment of compensation shall be jointly or severally upon the owner and the driver instead of the Insurance Company. Remaining part of the impugned awards shall remain intact.

¶48

Sd/-

¶49

(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge

¶50

Khatai

Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited v. Pannalal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited v. Pannalal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vikram Singh @ Vicky Vs Haridarshan

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Bhaskar Dewangan

Ghanshyam Sahu Vs Pramila Bai

Ganesh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

The National Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Rita Kumari

Smt. Pyari Bai Vs Krishnan K.