Ranjit Singh Datta. v. Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Co. and Ors.

J&K HC2 Aug 2023MA/36/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a motor accident appeal, the High Court modified an award by deleting the insurance company's liberty to recover compensation from the vehicle owner. The court held that since the injured passenger was an employed laborer paid for operating the vehicle, the amount must be paid directly from the insurance limits.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to respondent No.1 to recover the awarded amount from the appellant was deleted and the deposited amount released to the appellant.

Ranjit Singh Datta. Vs Hdfc Ergo General… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | J&K HC (2023)

¶1

Sr. No. 25

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU

¶3

MA No. 36/2018 IA No. 1/2018

¶4

Ranjit Singh Datta …..Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Sachin Sharma, Advocate

¶5

¶6

HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. and ors.

¶7

.…. Respondent(s)

¶8

Through: Mr. Vishnu Gupta, Advocate

¶9

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE

¶10

ORDER (ORAL)

¶11

This appeal arises out of judgment/award dated 15.11.2017 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udhampur (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Tribunal) in case File No. 51/Claim, titled, ‘Punjaboo Ram V/s Ashok Kumar and ors’, whereby the respondent No. 1-Insurance company has been permitted to recover the awarded amount from the owner of the offending vehicle i.e. appellant herein after satisfying the award passed in favour of the claimant (respondent No. 2).

¶12

This appeal has been filed by the owner of the offending vehicle on the ground that the learned Tribunal was not correct in permitting the Insurance Company to recover the awarded amount from him, particularly when the claimant specifically pleaded in the claim petition that he was working as a helper/labourer for loading and unloading purposes and the claimant proved the same by leading cogent evidence.

¶13

Mr. Sachin Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that once the claimant/respondent No. 2 had pleaded and proved the factum of

¶14

MA No. 36/2018

¶15

¶16

his working as a helper for the operation of load carrier, the Tribunal could not have permitted respondent No. 1- Insurance Company to recover the amount awarded in favour of the claimant/respondent No. 2 from the owner of the vehicle after paying the same to claimant/respondent No. 2.

¶17

Per contra , Mr. Vishnu Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No. 1- Insurance company has submitted that the claimant was a gratuitous passenger and his risk was not covered, therefore, the learned Tribunal was correct in permitting the respondent No. 1 to make payment of awarded amount in favour of the claimant/respondent No. 2 and thereafter recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle.

¶18

Heard and perused the record.

¶19

From the record, it transpires that in the petition filed by the claimant/respondent No. 2 for grant of compensation on account of injuries suffered by him in a vehicular accident that took place on 13.06.2014 at Bain Nall near Mansar, Tehsil Udhampur at about 09:30 PM, it was also pleaded by the claimant that he was working as a labourer

¶20

by profession and was engaged by the owner of the offending vehicle for loading and unloading purposes. The appellant, respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 3 were put to notice. The appellant filed the response, pleading therein that no accident was caused with the vehicle in question and if any accident took place, it was due to negligence of the claimant i.e. respondent No. 2, himself. Respondent No. 1-Insurance company has also filed the response, thereby admitting the insurance of the offending vehicle, however denied its liability to indemnify the owner.

¶21

MA No. 36/2018

¶22

¶23

On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:-

¶24

(1) Whether the petitioner Punjaboo sustained grievous injuries in a RTA caused on 14.06.2014 at Bain Nall near Mansar at about 9:30 Pm on account of the rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle bearing registration No. JK14C-3591 by its driver respondent no. 1 resulting into permanent disablement? OPP.

¶25

(2) If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, whether petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so to what effect and from whom? OPP.

¶26

(3) Whether the driver of offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of alleged accident and also was driving the offending vehicle in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, if so, to what effect? OPR

¶27

(4) Relief. OP Parties

¶28

The claimant/respondent No. 2 besides examining himself had also examined PW Gurdass and PW Dr. Kulwant Shekhar in respect of his claim. The appellant also appeared as a witness, whereas the respondent No. 1- Insurance Company examined RW Sanjay Kumar (official from ARTO, Udhampur). After perusing the evidence, the learned Tribunal passed the award impugned.

¶29

The issue raised in the present appeal is only as to whether the Tribunal was right in its approach to permit the respondent No. 1 to recover the awarded amount from the owner of the offending vehicle after paying the same to respondent No. 2/claimant. In order to appreciate this controversy, this Court deems it proper to have brief resume of evidence led by the parties.

¶30

From the statement of Punjaboo Ram-claimant, it is evident that he had categorically stated that he was employed as a labourer in the offending vehicle and was getting Rs. 5000/- as monthly remuneration. Further perusal of the statement of the appellant reveals that he too admitted that the claimant was under his employment and was being paid Rs. 2000/- per

¶31

MA No. 36/2018

¶32

¶33

month. From the evidence brought on record, it is proved that the claimant i.e. respondent No. 2 was working as a labourer with the offending vehicle. A perusal of the policy schedule reveals that the Insurance Company has received a premium of Rs. 50/- for a person in connection with operation of the offending vehicle.

¶34

Once the Tribunal returned a finding that the claimant was working as a labourer by occupation after appreciating the evidence, there cannot be any reason to disbelieve the evidence led by the claimant/respondent No. 2, duly corroborated by the appellant herein that he was employed with the appellant as a labourer for the purpose of operating the offending vehicle.

¶35

In view of what has been stated and discussed above, the award dated 15.11.2017 is modified to the extent that liberty granted to the respondent No. 1 to recover the awarded amount from the appellant is deleted. The amount deposited as pre requisite for filing the appeal be released in favour of the appellant.

¶36

Disposed of.

¶37

(RAJNESH OSWAL) JUDGE

¶38

Jammu
02.08.2023
Neha-II
	Whether the order is speaking:	Yes/No
	Whether the order is reportable:	Yes/No

Ranjit Singh Datta. v. Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Co. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjit Singh Datta. v. Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Co. and Ors.

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

Sabita Abrol and Others ( Lr of Late Sh.Shiv Dass) Vs Rajat Sharma and Ors.

Divisional Manager,Jksfc,Ramban Vs Chuni Lal

Balwan Singh Vs Arjun Singh and Ors.

Prem Kumar Vs Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd.and Ors.

Oriental Insurance Company Incorporated Under Companies Act Th Dhuni Singh Mottan. Vs Salam Din and Others.

Oriental Insurance Company Incorporated Under Companies Act Th Dhuni Singh Mottan . Vs Altaf Hussain and Others.