Vinod Verma Vs Rati Ram Vishwakarma

1 - Rati Ram Vishwakarma S/o Bhadu Vishwakarma, Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Kanhar Gaon, Post Devkatta, Police Station Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

¶11

2 - Keshav Prasad Janghel S/o Mukund Ram, R/o Village Utai, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶12

3 - Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶13

Respondent(s)

¶14

For Appellant : Mr. Manoj Chouhan, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Akash Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate

¶15

Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey

¶16

Order on Board

¶17

11/03/2025

¶18

This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellant/claimant against the award 07.12.2016 passed by the learned Upper Motor Accident Claims

¶19

2

¶20

Tribunal, Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon in Claim Case No.44/20123, whereby though the claim of the appellant/claimant has been partly allowed by awarding Rs.3,53,170/-, but the liability to pay the said amount has been fastened upon the respondent Nos.1 & 2, whereas the respondent No.3 Insurance Company has been exonerated to pay the said amount.

¶21

Brief facts of the case are that the on on 06.05.2011 at about 10:00 am, the appellant/clamant was coming towards his house from his provision store on his motorcycle bearing Registration No.CG-08-H-8419 and on the way near Tekapar, the respondent no.1/respondent no.1 driving offending vehicle Swaraj Mazda bearing Registration no.C.G.-07-C-2396 rashly and negligently dashed appellant's motorcycle, as a result of which he fell down and sustained serious injuries on his right leg, both hands and head, thereafter he was admitted to Govt Hospital Khairagarh and thereafter at District Hospital Rajnandgaon and further was referred to Apollo Hospital Bhilai where he was admitted from 08.05.2011 to 16.05.2011 and during treatment his knee of right leg was imputed, thereafter the claim petition was filed before the learned Tribunal and the learned Tribunal partly allowed the claim case of the appellant/claimant and awarded Rs.3,53,170/- in favour of the claimant by fastening liability to pay the said amount on the respondent Nos.1 & 2, whereas the respondent No.3 has been exonerated from paying the said amount, against which the present appeal has been filed by the appellant/claimant.

¶22

3

¶23

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned award passed by learned trial tribunal exonerating the respondent no. 3 Shri Ram General Insurance Company and fixing absolute liability of payment of compensation upon the respondent no. 1 & 2 only is invalid improper, bad in law as well contrary to law and procedure and thus it is unsustainable in the eyes of law. The impugned award is neither just nor proper as not based on authentic and cogent evidence and materials on records. The learned tribunal has gravelly erred in arriving at the conclusion that the offending vehicle was not carrying effective permit on the date of accident and therefore respondent no. 3 was entitled for exoneration from payment of award. The appreciation of learned trial tribunal on issue no.4 with respect to the violation of policy relating to the offending vehicle is absolutely erroneous and untrustworthy and as such deserves to be interfered by this Court. The learned tribunal has failed to see that the respondent no.3 has deliberately failed to discharge heavy burden to prove that the owner of offending vehicle intentionally or so recklessly violated the terms of policy. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed. Reliance has been placed on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Amrit Paul Singh and another vs Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd and others , reported in AIR 2018 SC 2662.

¶24

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.3

¶25

4

¶26

supports the impugned award and submits that the Tribunal considering all the relevant aspects of the matters has rightly awarded compensation and fixed liability upon the respondent Nos.1 & 2 to pay the compensation to the appellant. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

¶27

Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submits that the learned Tribunal has wrongly fastened the liability upon the respondent Nos.1 & 2 jointly and severally, whereas the policy conditions of the insurance company were not breached despite that the liability to pay compensation has been fastened upon the respondent Nos.1 & 2, as such the respondent No.3 is liable to pay the compensation amount to the appellant/claimant.

¶28

No counter appeal has been filed by the respondents as submitted by learned counsel for the parties.

¶29

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶30

Admittedly on the date of accident, the offending vehicle was duly insured with respondent No.3 and the respondent No.2 was a third party/owner of the offending vehicle, whereas the respondent No.1 is the driver of the offending vehicle. Therefore, keeping in view the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manuara Khatun and others Vs. Rajesh Kumar Singh and others, (2017) 4 SCC 796 and Shivawwa and another Vs. Branch Manager, National India Insurance Company Limited and another, (2018) 5 SCC 762 , this Court is of the opinion that

¶31

5

¶32

the Tribunal has committed illegality in fastening the liability upon the respondent Nos.1 & 2 to pay the compensation, instead it should have fastened the liability upon the respondent No.3 insurance company to pay and recover.

¶33

Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The impugned award is modified to the extent that the liability to pay the aforesaid amount of compensation is fastened upon the respondent No.3 insurance company on the principle of pay and recover from the respondent No.1 & 2.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

Rajani Dubey Judge

¶36

Nirala

Vinod Verma v. Rati Ram Vishwakarma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod Verma v. Rati Ram Vishwakarma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Hanuman Sharma Vs P.K. Dalal and Company

Krishna Sinha Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vishambharnath Mishra Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Pushpa Bai Vs Commissioner

Madhu Kant Yadu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mamta Devata Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.