Dismissed

The Branch Manager Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited v. Atika Devi and Anr.

Jharkhand HC2 Jan 2023MA/261/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed an insurance company's appeal challenging an award of compensation for a fatal motor accident victim. The court held that the deceased owner was covered under third party liability as per the Motor Vehicles Act, and the impugned award contained no illegality.

What did the court decide?

Release of statutory amount deposited by the appellant in favour of Respondent No.1.

The Branch Manager Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company… — Insurance | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

Miscellaneous Appeal No. 261 of 2014

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Miscellaneous Appeal No. 261 of 2014

¶4

The Branch Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, 504, Mahabir Tower, Opp. Church Complex, Main Road, P.O. Ranchi (Main), P.S. Chutia, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand 834001 through its Senior Executive, T.P. Claims, Kaushal Kishore Mishra, S/o S.C. Mishra, Senior Executive, Bajan Allianz General Insurance Company Limited … Appellant

¶5

-Versus-

¶6

Atika Devi, W/o Lt. Nimay Mandal, r/o Vill.- Torai, P.O. Torai P.S. Hiranpur, Dist.- Pakur

¶7

Uttam Mandal, S/o Late Nimay Mandal, resident of Village & P.O.Torai, P.S. Hiranpur, District- Pakur … Respondents

¶8

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶9

For the Appellant : Mr. Alok Lal, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Shashi Kumar Verma, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Md. Yasir Arafat, Advocate

¶10

14/02.01.2023 Heard Mr. Alok Lal, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Shashi Kumar Verma, learned counsel for respondent no.1 and Mr. Md. Yasir Arafat, learned counsel for respondent no.2.

¶11

This appeal has been filed challenging the validity and legality of the judgment/award dated 22.04.2014 passed in MACT Case No.34 of 2012 by the learned Principal District Judge cum Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal, Pakur, whereby, the award has been delivered with direction to the appellant to pay Rs.12 Lakhs along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of institution of the suit dated 01.03.2012.

¶12

Respondent no.1 filed an application seeking compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 for the death of her husband Late Nimay Mandal. In the said application, respondent no.1 stated that her husband was standing near a bridge at Piyarsola on 17.12.2011 at 03:00 P.M. when a Tractor bearing no. JH-16A-6314, which was being driven by driver Nepal Mandal dashed the deceased leading to his death. It was

¶13

2 Miscellaneous Appeal No. 261 of 2014

¶14

further stated in the application that her husband was aged 44 years and he was doing business of tractor, pumping set, bricks and cultivation and was earning Rs.22,000/- per month. The claimant claimed a compensation of Rs.15 Lakhs. Pursuant to that claim, the learned court has decided the said claim in MACT Case No.34 of 2012 vide judgment/award dated 22.04.2014 and considering the rival submissions of the parties, he has come to that conclusion and passed the award to pay compensation of Rs.12 Lakhs along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of institution of the suit dated 01.03.2012 by the appellant, which is under challenge in this appeal.

¶15

Mr. Alok Lal, learned counsel for the appellant has attacked the said award on the ground that the driver was not having valid license and the deceased was the owner of the tractor in question and he was standing at the public place and in that view of the matter, third party claim cannot be claimed. On these two grounds, he challenged the said award. He relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in The New India Assurance Company Limited v. Chhaya Rani Dey in M.A. No.2 of 2017; [2019 0 Supreme (Jhk) 94] and submits that this issue has been decided by this Court. He further relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Company Limited v. Sadanand Mukhi and Others; [(2009) 2 SCC 417] . By way of relying on these judgments, he submits that the issue has already been settled and award is required to be interfered by this Court.

¶16

On the other hand, Mr. Shashi Kumar Verma, learned counsel for respondent no.1 submits that the learned court has discussed the entire facts including the statements as well as evidence and thereafter has passed the judgment/award. He further submits that there is no illegality in

¶17

3 Miscellaneous Appeal No. 261 of 2014

¶18

the judgment/award.

¶19

Mr. Md. Yasir Arafat, learned counsel for respondent no.2 submits that the owner is already insured and the said benefit is required to be provided to the deceased, as has been held by several High Courts including the Madhya Pradesh High Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kishore Kumar Lalwani; [2006 0 Supreme (MP) 1097] . On this ground, he submits that there is no requirement to interfere with the judgment/award passed by the learned court.

¶20

In view of the above submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, the Court has gone through the materials on record including the judgment/award dated 22.04.2014 and finds that admittedly the deceased was the owner of the tractor in question and he was insured as the owner of the said tractor bearing No. JH-16A-6314. The learned court has framed the issue in paragraph no.7 of the judgment and after going through the evidence of the witnesses as well as the documentary evidence, the learned court has come to that conclusion. The learned court has considered the driving license whether it was effective or not on the date of accident in paragraph no.10 of the said judgment/award and after going through the license of the driver and looking into the validity of the said driving license, the learned court has held that on the date of accident the driving license was valid and the offending vehicle was insured. Thus, the argument of Mr. Alok Lal, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, so far as driving license is concerned, is negated by the Court. So far as the argument with regard to the third party risk is concerned, it is not in dispute that the tractor in question was insured and the owner was also insured and he was standing at the public place and the said tractor has hit

¶21

4 Miscellaneous Appeal No. 261 of 2014

¶22

and pursuant to that, the owner of the vehicle had died. The learned court has considered the documents as well as the exhibits and has come to that conclusion and has considered about the liability of the insurance company with regard to the third party risk of owner at paragraph no.21 of the said judgment/award considering Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is immaterial that when the owner was already insured and he was dashed by the concerned tractor and he was not on board of the said tractor and he was dashed at the public place and pursuant to that, he has died, he will be treated as third party in view of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act. So far as the judgment relied by Mr. Alok Lal, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in case of New India Assurance Company Limited v. Chhaya Rani Dey (supra) is concerned that was interfered with in view of the fact that the motor-cycle was being driven by the deceased and in view of the policy contents, that order was passed. Thus, that judgment is not helping the appellant. Under Section 147 of the said Act, that covers the third party risk which has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited v. Sadanand Mukhi and Others (supra) which has been relied by Mr. Alok Lal, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant wherein it has been held that by taking an ‘Act policy’ the owner of a vehicle fulfills his statutory obligation as contained in Section 147 of the Act. The liability of the insurer is either statutory or contractual. If it is contractual its liability extends to the risk covered by the policy of insurance. Admittedly, the deceased was not on board. He was standing at the public place and thus, he can be treated as third party and as such that judgment is not helping the appellant.

¶23

In view of the aforesaid facts, reasons and analysis, this Court finds

¶24

5 Miscellaneous Appeal No. 261 of 2014

¶25

that there is no illegality in the impugned judgment/award and, accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.

¶26

The statutory amount deposited by the appellant shall be released in favour of Atika Devi (respondent no.1).

¶27

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶28

Ajay/

The Branch Manager Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited v. Atika Devi and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Branch Manager Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited v. Atika Devi and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Renu Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Payal Kumari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ahmad Hussain Vs the State of Jharkhand

Budho Devi Vs MD Jamaluddin Ansari and Anr.

Bijay Kumar Agrawal Vs Seraikella Municipality And Anr.

Union of India through the Deputy Chief Commercial Manager Claims through N Marandi Vs Sanjay Kumar Gupta Alias Sanjay Gupta