Dismissed

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Janki Devi and Ors.

Patna HC2 Jul 2013MA/925/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Insurance company appealed against a motor accident tribunal award. The court held that since the insurer could not prove the owner knowingly permitted a driver with a fake licence to operate the vehicle, the tribunal's direction for indemnity was correct. Appeal dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Appeal disposed of; impugned judgment and award of the tribunal affirmed.

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Janki Devi and Ors. — Banking and Recovery | Patna HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Appeal No.925 of 2010

¶2

====================================================== United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Chanakaya Commercial Complex, 3^rd floor, R-Block, Patna (insurer of the vehicle). (Insurer of Tractor bearing No.BR-21P-7422) .... Opposite Party no.3 .... Appellant/s Versus 1. Smt. Janki Devi, W/o Bhola Pd. Laheri. 2. Bhola Pd. Laheri, S/o Late Ram Gopal Pd. Laheri. Both are residents of Mohalla- Bankipur Gorakh, P.O. + P.S. - Fatuah, District- Patna. .... Claimants .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Prakash Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER 4 02-07-2013 Heard Mr. Prakash Kumar, learned counsel

¶3

appearing for the appellant.

¶4

This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 28.5.2010/6.9.2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-VI-cum- Motor Vehicles Accident Claim Tribunal, Patna in Claim Case No.421 of 2007/55 of 2008, whereby the claim of the claimants has been allowed together with interest.

¶5

The only issue which is sought to be raised by the insurance company before this Court is that the tribunal even while taking note of the report of the D.T.O., Bhagalpur which was led as Exhibit-A in order to demonstrate that the driving licence held by the driver had not been issued by the said

¶6

Patna High Court MA No.925 of 2010 (4) dt.02-07-2013

¶7

¶8

authority, yet directed the insurance company to indemnify the insured with liberty to recover the same from the owner of the offending bus. It is thus submitted that once the fact that the licence was fake has been established, the tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction to impose liability on the insurance company.

¶9

Learned counsel has relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in (2008) 3 SCC 193 (Prem Kumari and others vs. Prahlad Dev) in support of his submission.

¶10

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials on record. The only issue which is posed before this Court is whether in view of the report of the D.T.O. casting doubt as regarding the genuineness of the licence, could the tribunal direct the insurance company to make payment. The issue stands answered by the very judgment rendered in the case of Prem Kumari (supra) relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant and reference is made to paragraph 7 to 9 of the said judgment in which the Supreme Court taking note of this aspect has held that merely on grounds of a licence being charged to be fake, would not be sufficient for the insurance company to avoid the liability until such time that the insurance company is able to prove that the owner was aware and had full notice of the fact that the licence was fake and yet permitted the driver to operate

¶11

Patna High Court MA No.925 of 2010 (4) dt.02-07-2013

¶12

¶13

the vehicle.

¶14

No such case has been made out by the insurance company either before the tribunal or before this Court and in which view of the matter, the award suffers from no legal infirmity. Further since liberty has already been granted to the insurance company of making recovery of the amount from the owner of the offending bus, no prejudice can be said to have been caused to the insurance company. Having held as such this Court is not persuaded to interfere with the impugned judgment and award and this appeal is accordingly disposed of.

¶15

Let the lower court records be returned to the tribunal concerned forthwith.

¶16

(Jyoti Saran, J)

¶17

SKPathak/-

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Janki Devi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Janki Devi and Ors.

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

Divisional Manager,National in Vs Nimiya Devi and Ors.

Narendra Singh Bhamra @ Narend Vs Kaleshwari Devi and Ors.

United India Insurance Company Vs Shrail Ansari and Ors.

Gems Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sri Jai Babu Singh and Ors.

Tulo Devi Vs Union of India and Ors.

National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Pushpa Devi and Ors.