The High Court of Punjab and Haryana allowed the application for condonation of delay in filing a motor accident claim appeal. It dismissed the appeal against the Tribunal's award, holding the insurer liable for the death of an occupant under the policy's Section II-(i).
Delay of 37 days condoned; appeal dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
FAO No.4221 of 2009 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
FAO No.4221 of 2009 (O&M) (in MACT case No.5 of 10.1.2008) Date of decision:16.4.2012
Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.
...Appellant
Versus
Smt.Sushma and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN
Present: Mr.Subhash Goyal, Advocate for the appellant
None for the respondents.
Jitendra Chauhan, J. (Oral)
Application for condonation of delay
Heard.
For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. Delay of 37 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.
Main appeal.
The Insurance Company has preferred the present appeal, assailing the Award dated 18.2.2009, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon (for short 'the Tribunal), whereby the claim petition was allowed and the appellant, being the insurer of the offending vehicle was held liable to indemnify the award.
FAO No.4221 of 2009 (O&M) 2
Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the driver and the owner of the offending Bolero Jeep had violated the terms and conditions of the Insurance policy on the relevant date and time. The deceased was a gratuitous passenger and the policy issued by the Insurance Company i.e. appellant, is not intended to cover the risk of life or injury to a gratuitous passenger carried in a private vehicle.
The respondents were served, but none appeared on their behalf. Hence, they are proceeded against ex-partre.
I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record carefully.
From the perusal of Ex.R-1 i.e. certificate -cum-policy schedule, it is clear that under Section II-(i) of the policy- the Insurance company is liable to pay the compensation on account of death or bodily injury to any person including occupants carried in the vehicle (provided such occupants are not carried for hire or reward).
There is not an iota of evidence that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger. In view of above said Section, the deceased being the occupant of the vehicle, shall be covered under this policy. Therefore, the Insurance Company has been rightly held liable to satisfy the award by the learned Tribunal.
The present appeal is dismissed being bereft of any merit.
(JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE
16.4.2012 gsv
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the insurance policy covers death of a gratuitous passenger carried in a private vehicle.
Whether the appeal against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award has merit.
Whether delay of 37 days in filing the appeal should be condoned.
Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Sushma
Jitendra Chauhan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
