Partly allowed

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Parveen @ Parveen Kumar & Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC31 Jan 2013FAO/215/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed Appellant Reliance General Insurance Company's appeal holding it has the right to recover compensation from the vehicle owner/driver due to the use of an unfit driver, while dismissing the excess compensation claim.

What did the court decide?

Reliance General Insurance Company allowed to recover compensation from vehicle owner/driver as driver lacked valid transport licence.

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Parveen @ Parveen… — Insurance | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

FAO No.215 of 2010

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

FAO No.215 of 2010(O&M) DATE OF DECISION: January 31,2013

¶5

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited

¶6

versus

¶7

Parveen @ Parveen Kumar and another

¶8

……Respondents

¶9

FAO No.216 of 2010

¶10

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited

¶11

…….Appellant

¶12

versus

¶13

Mukesh @ Mukesh Kumar and another

¶14

……Respondents

¶15

CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY

¶16

Present: Mr.P.M.Goyal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.Ravi Kamal Gupta, Amicus Curiae for the respondents.

¶17

DAYA CHAUDHARY, J.

¶18

These two appeals are being disposed of by this common order since they arise out of award dated 5.3.2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon(for short 'the Tribunal').

¶19

For the reasons mentioned in both the applications in both appeals, delay in filing the appeals is condoned.

¶20

¶21

FAO No.215 of 2010

¶22

The Insurance Company is appellant before this

¶23

Court.

¶24

The facts, in a nutshell, are that on 23.5.2007, at about 7.30 p.m., in a motor vehicular accident, Parveen @ Parveen Kumar and Mukesh @ Mukesh Kumar, respondents herein and Pankaj sustained multiple injuries. Two separate claim petitions were filed by Parveen @ Parveen Kumar and Mukesh @ Mukesh Kumar.

¶25

The claim petitions were contested by the Insurance Company and the driver/owner of the offending vehicle.

¶26

On appraisal of evidence, the Tribunal allowed the claim petitions, wherein, Parveen alias Parveen Kumar was held entitled to compensation amounting to Rs.1,60,000/-, whereas, Mukesh @ Mukesh Kumar was held entitled to Rs.40,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till its actual realisation which has to be paid by the owner/driver as well as Insurance Company, jointly and severally. The costs of the petition were also awarded.

¶27

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that compensation amount awarded to the claimants is on the excessive side. He further submits that there was a breach of terms of the insurance policy, inasmuch as, the driver was not holding any valid driving licence to ply the public service vehicle (auto-rickshaw) and, therefore, the insurance company

¶28

¶29

FAO No.215 of 2010

¶30

has a right to recover the compensation amount from the driver/owner of the offending vehicle.

¶31

Mr. Gupta, Amicus Curiae appearing for the respondents submits that the compensation amount is not excessive. However, he submits that the driver was not holding the valid driving licence to drive the public service vehicle.

¶32

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments raised by learned counsel for the parties.

¶33

Before examining the issues in question, it would be relevant to reproduce the order dated 19.10.2012 passed by this Court:

¶34

“Contends that though vehicle driven by the driver was a light motor vehicle, he requires a licence for driving a transport vehicle in terms of Section 3 of the Act. Admittedly, driver did not possess such a licence. Tribunal has thus committed a grave error in denying recovery rights to insurance company. Amicus Curiae, who has been asked to assist the court on behalf of owner of vehicle, prays for one last opportunity to examine the aforesaid issue and address arguments. On his request, adjourned to 31.1.2013.”

¶35

The argument of learned counsel for the Insurance Company that the compensation amount is on higher side has

¶36

¶37

FAO No.215 of 2010

¶38

no substance. The tribunal after taking into consideration the amount spent for treatment as well as other factors, had awarded compensation amount. In the case in hand, claimantParveen suffered 22% disability. The victim’s due to the aforesaid disability would not lead a normal life and enjoy amenities which he would have enjoyed in normal life in case the unfortunate accident had not taken place. Nothing has been shown that the amount of compensation is on higher side.

¶39

The second argument of learned counsel for the Insurance Company that the Insurance Company has not been given a right to recover the compensation amount from the owner/driver of the offending vehicle has merit and needs to be accepted. The auto rickshaw involved in accident was a public service vehicle. However, the driver was holding the licence to ply the light motor vehicle which does not entitle him to drive a transport vehicle. Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides that there should be specific mention in the driving licence which entitles the holder to drive the transport vehicle. There is no material on record to show that the driver of the offending vehicle was carrying driving licence entitling him to drive the auto-rickshaw. In such like situation, the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle for breach of terms of the Act in policy and the insurer has a right to recover the amount. The view taken is fortified by this Court

¶40

¶41

FAO No.215 of 2010

¶42

in Jagbir v. Smt. Sarla Devi FAO No.3624 of 2012, decided on

¶43

4.9.2012.

¶44

In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present appeals are disposed of with the said modification.

January 31,2013

(Daya Chaudhary)

Judge

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Parveen @ Parveen Kumar & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Parveen @ Parveen Kumar & 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

Baru Vs Kailash Chand and Ors.

Yadav Sabha Thr. Its Gen. Secy. & Anr. Vs Ram Narain Yadav & Anr.

Amar Kaur Vs Badal Singh and Ors.

Jagmohan Singh Vs Karamjit Singh and Ors.

Indovax Private Limited Vs Sunder Singh

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sumitra and Ors.