Partly allowed

Oriental Insurance Company Lim v. Surendar Singh and Ors.

Patna HC17 Jul 2013MA/238/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against a Motor Accident Claim award, the High Court modified the judgment to shift payment liability from the Insurance Company to the vehicle owners due to policy coverage gaps, ordering owners to pay compensation and interest while remitting deposited funds.

What did the court decide?

Compensation payment liability shifted from Insurance Company to vehicle owners (Respondents 6 and 7); impugned award modified accordingly.

Oriental Insurance Company Lim Vs Surendar Singh and Ors. — Motor Accident Claims | Patna HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Miscellaneous Appeal No.238 of 2008

¶3

====================================================== Oriental Insurance Company Limited through its Patna Regional Office, which is at present situated at Pirmuhani More, P.O. Kadam Kuan, P.S. Gandhi Maidan, Town and District Patna

¶4

.... .... Appellant/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

1. Surendar Singh son of Triloki Singh, husband of deceased

¶7

Puja Kumari

¶8

Arti Kumari

¶9

Bandana Kumari, Minor daughers of the deceased

¶10

Amrit Kumar, minor son of the deceased, all the minor daughters and son of Surendar Singh from deceased Babita Devi are under the legal and natural guardianship of their father Surendra Singh and all are residents of village-Semari, P.O. Sikariya, P.S. Sheosagar, District Rohtas

¶11

Narendra Kumar Singh son of Sri Jamindar Singh, resident of village Kusudhi, P.O. Nad, P.S. Sasaram, District Rohtas

¶12

S.K. Singh, son of Janardan Singh, r/o- village-Kusudhi, P.O. Ward, P.S. Sasaram, District Rohtas

¶13

.... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

¶14

For the Appellant/s : Mr. Rajen Sahay, Adv.

¶15

Mr. Shambhu Sharan Singh, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Rameshwar Singh, Adv.

¶16

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER

¶17

13 17-07-2013 Heard Mr. Rajen Sahay, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Rameshwar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the claimantrespondent Nos. 1 to 5 and Mr. Bimal Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 i.e. the owner and the driver of the offending vehicle.

¶18

This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) is directed towards the judgment and award dated 16.1.2008/16.6.2008 passed by the Additional District Judge, F.T.C.-II-cum-Motor Accident Claim

¶19

Patna High Court MA No.238 of 2008 (13) dt.17-07-2013

¶20

2 / 5

¶21

Tribunal, Rohtas in Motor Vehicle Claim Case No. 76 of 2007 whereby the Tribunal while allowing the claim case has directed the appellant-Insurance Company to make payment of the compensation amount together with interest quantified at 6% from the date of filing of the claim case.

¶22

With the consent of the parties this matter has been taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.

¶23

The facts of the case leading to the claim case in brief is that the wife of the claimant No.1 who also happens to be the mother of claimant Nos. 2 to 5 along with her father-in-law Triloki Singh has boarded the offending tractor bearing Registration No. BR 24(B)/4510. The said tractor met with an accident and turned turtle and as a consequence three persons including the wife of the claimant-respondent No.1 namely, Babita Kumari died being crushed under the trailor while the father-in-law who also was travelling on the same tractor namely; Triloki Singh suffered injuries.

¶24

It is stated that the claimants filed a claim case setting up a claim of Rs. 2 lacs describing the deceased to be in occupation as an Anganbari Sevika and experienced in sewing, cutting and painting works.

¶25

Pursuant to the notice issued the Insurance Company and the owner appeared and filed their response opposing the claim case.

¶26

While the stand taken by the Insurance Company to oppose

¶27

Patna High Court MA No.238 of 2008 (13) dt.17-07-2013

¶28

3 / 5

¶29

the claim was that the tractor was not insured to ferry passenger as also on grounds that the deceased was travelling on the trailor attached to the tractor which itself was not insured, the claim was opposed by the owner on grounds that there was no rash and negligent driving by the driver as also on grounds that the passenger had boarded the tractor on their own volition.

¶30

On the basis of the rival contentions and the evidence adduced, the claim case was allowed directing the Insurance Company to make payment of the compensation amount and interest hence this appeal.

¶31

I have heard learned counsel for the parties in support and in opposition of this appeal and I have perused the materials on record which has been summoned under the orders of this Court.

¶32

The only issue that has been raised by Mr. Sahay appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company is that in absence of the policy conditions covering gratuitous passengers travelling on the tractor, the Insurance Company would not be saddled with the compensation amount.

¶33

The insurance policy covering the tractor in question forms part of the Lower Court Records and a glance thereof manifests that it is only the goods loaded on the tractor along with the owner and the baggage, are the items of coverage under the Insurance. Although there is nothing on record to demonstrate whether the tractor was

¶34

Patna High Court MA No.238 of 2008 (13) dt.17-07-2013

¶35

4 / 5

¶36

being used for hire or reward but even otherwise treating the persons boarding on the tractor being in the nature of gratuitous passenger, the fact remains that at the time of occurrence they were travelling on the tractor and have died due to overturning of the tractor in question. Thus in absence of the coverage under the policy being extended to such of the persons certainly the Insurance Company could not have been saddled with the compensation amount. In fact the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is completely silent as to the circumstances in which the Tribunal had arrived at the conclusion of making the Insurance Company liable for payment.

¶37

On the other hand, the records also do not support the case of the owner regarding the passenger having boarded the tractor on their own volition.

¶38

Neither any evidence was led by the owner in support of this contention nor the witnesses led by the claimants were crossexamined on this issue. Thus in absence of any evidence to support this contention, the opposition led by Mr. Bimal Kumar on behalf of the owner, cannot be upheld.

¶39

In normal course this Court would have remitted this matter for fresh consideration and disposal of the case but considering the benevolent purpose of the legislation and the time lapse, this Court is of the opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served for the reason that ultimately, the only conclusion drawn, would require the owner

¶40

Patna High Court MA No.238 of 2008 (13) dt.17-07-2013

¶41

5 / 5

¶42

to make payment of the compensation amount.

¶43

For the reasons aforesaid, this appeal is allowed, the judgment and award to the extent that it casts an obligation on the Insurance Company to make payment of the compensation amount together with interest stands modified to the extent that now it shall be the owners namely, Narendra kumar Singh as well as S.K.Singh i.e. the respondent No.6 and respondent No.7 respectively who stand responsible for making payment of the compensation amount in terms of the judgment and award and shall make payment of the compensation amount in terms of the award impugned.

¶44

The appeal is allowed. The judgment and award stands modified to the extent hereinabove.

¶45

Let the statutory amount deposited in this Court be remitted to the Insurance Company.

¶46

Let the lower Court Records be returned to the Tribunal concerned forthwith.

¶47

(Jyoti Saran, J)

¶48

Bibhash/-

Oriental Insurance Company Lim v. Surendar Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Oriental Insurance Company Lim v. Surendar Singh 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

Shanti Devi Vs Unitee India Insurance Compnay and Anr.

Anpurna Devi and Ors. Vs Smt. Rekha Devi and Ors.

Branch Manager National Insura Vs Tara Devi and Ors.

Amin Singh Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Krishna Madhav Lal Vs Birendra Kumar Sinha and Ors.

Prasadi Mandal and Ors. Vs Gagadhar Mandal and Ors.