Dismissed

National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Mohinder Singh and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC23 Jul 2014FAO/1039/1993

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In these appeals arising from a bomb blast on a Haryana Roadways bus, the Insurance Company challenged the Tribunal's finding of liability, claiming terrorism was excluded from their policy. The Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the Company failed to prove under Section 91 of the Evidence Act that the insurance policy excluded terrorism risks.

What did the court decide?

The appeals were dismissed.

National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Mohinder Singh… — Cheque Dishonour | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

FAO No.1039 of 1993

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

FAO No.1039 of 1993 Date of decision: 23.07.2014

¶5

National Insurance Company Ltd.

¶6

.....Appellant

¶7

versus

¶8

Mohinder Singh and others

¶9

.... Respondents

¶10

FAO No.1040 of 1993 Date of decision: 23.07.2014

¶11

National Insurance Company Ltd.

¶12

.....Appellant

¶13

versus

¶14

Ashwani Kumar Sharma and others

¶15

.... Respondents

¶16

Present: Mr.Tarun Singla, Advocate for the appellant.

¶17

Mr.H.S.Sran, Additional A.G., Haryana.

¶18

S.S. SARON, J.

¶19

This order will dispose of FAO No.1039 of 1993 and FAO No.1040 of 1993 as these arise out of the same judgment and award dated 16.02.1990 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal ('Tribunal'-for short) whereby compensation has been awarded to the legal heirs of the deceased who died in the Harayana Roadways bus due to a bomb blast near Karna Lake,

¶20

AMIT KAUNDAL 2014.08.12 13:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶21

FAO No.1039 of 1993

¶22

-2-

¶23

Karnal that had occurred.

¶24

Haryana Roadways Bus No.HNC-5629 was enroute from Kasauli to Delhi on 09.08.1989. Three passengers namely Tarsem Singh, Jagan Nath Sharma and Maheshwari Sharma boarded the bus at Chandigarh for travelling to Delhi. The bus reached near Karna Lake, Karnal at about 12.00 noon and the bomb blast occurred in it. As a result of which, the said three passengers died at the spot. There were other causalities also. Three claim petitions were filed by the legal heirs of the respective deceased. It was contended on behalf of the claimants that it was the duty of the bus driver as well as the conductor to ensure the safety of the passengers and to provide them security while travelling. The owner as well as the drivers were totally negligent.

¶25

The claim petitions were contested by the respondents i.e. State of Haryana, General Manager Haryana Roadways, Ambala Depot (owner of the bus), Babu Ram driver and National Insurance Company Ltd. Ambala Cantt. (appellant).

¶26

The fact that a bomb blast had occurred in the bus was not disputed. The Haryana Roadways denied that the driver and Conductor were not careful or that the ground staff was in any manner negligent or careless. It was pleaded that despite all the precautions that were taken, the mishap had occurred. The appellant-Insurance Company pleaded that the driver and owner of the bus were not at fault as it was a case of a bomb blast by the AMIT KAUNDALterrorists and as such the claim petitions under the Motor Vehicles 2014.08.12 13:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶27

FAO No.1039 of 1993

¶28

-3-

¶29

Act were not maintainable. The claim petitions were also contested on the ground of locus standi, limitation and liability of the appellantInsurance Company being limited to Rs.15000/- per passenger.

¶30

The learned Tribunal after considering the evidence and material on record awarded the compensation to the claimants of varying amounts. However, the liability of the appellant-Insurance Company was limited to Rs.15000/- per passenger. The Insurance Company has filed the present appeals assailing the findings of the learned Tribunal that in fact it was not liable to pay any compensation as the mishap that had occurred was not due to an accident and was an act of terrorism which is not covered by the insurance policy.

¶31

Learned counsel for the State has opposed the stand of the appellant-Insurance Company stating that the learned Tribunal had limited its claim to Rs.15,000/- per passenger in terms of the Insurance Policy. It is submitted that the case of the appellantInsurance Company is absolutely devoid of merit and it cannot wriggle out of its liability.

¶32

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the matter. It may be noticed that the paper book of the case was burnt in the fire that broke out in the High Court and the file had been reconstructed. Learned counsel for the appellant has given a copy of the Insurance Policy relating to the present case. He has not been able to show that in terms of the said policy the acts of terrorism were excluded from the operation of the policy. The policy that has been shown is

¶33

AMIT KAUNDALas usual in fine print and quite illegible. In any case nothing has 2014.08.12 13:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶34

FAO No.1039 of 1993

¶35

-4-

¶36

been shown as to how the acts of terrorism are excluded from the Policy.

¶37

Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company has referred to the deposition of Shri S.C. Juneja, Assistant Divisional Manager, Division No.2, National Insurance Company RW-2 who has inter alia stated that as per Ex.R-2, the limited liability per passenger is Rs.15000/-. Premium for it was charged at the rate of Rs.12/- per passenger. In case of third party risk and passenger risk, flood, earthquake and terrorists activities was not covered as given in the general exception of the policy. No additional premium was charged to cover these risk. It is further stated that the Insurance Company started covering terrorists risks after January, 1990 after receipt of circular Ex.R-4. Even after this circular letter, the risk of terrorists activities in connection with riot and strike risks are applicable to only damage section of the policy even then third party and passenger is excluded against this risk. A reading of the impugned judgment, however, shows that Ex.R-1 is a copy of the Insurance Policy, Ex.R-2 is the cover note of the Insurance Policy, Ex.R-3 is a letter regarding insurance of buses, Ex.R-4 is a letter regarding insurance covering terrorists risk. The deposition of Sh.S.C. Juneja (RW2) is based on Ex.R-2 i.e. the cover note. However, it is the Insurance Policy Ex.R-1 which determines the rights and liabilities of the parties. Shri S.C. Juneja, Assistant Divisional Manager, Division No.2, National Insurance Company, Chandigarh (RW-2) for the reasons best know n AMIT KAUNDALto him refused to accept liability of the Insurance Company on the 2014.08.12 13:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶38

FAO No.1039 of 1993

¶39

-5-

¶40

basis of the cover note Ex.R-2. Learned counsel for the appellant company on the basis of the insurance policy Ex.R-1 has not been able to show as to how terrorists activities are excluded from the insurance policy. Even otherwise the oral evidence of Shri. S. C. Juneja, Assistant Divisional Manager, Division No.2, National Insurance Company, Chandigarh (RW-2) is not of much significance as there are documents available on record. Section 91 of the Evidence Act relates to evidence of terms of contracts, grants and other dispositions of property reduced to form of documents. It is envisaged therein that when the terms of a contract etc. have been reduced to the form of a document, and in all cases in which any matter is required by law is reduced to the form of a document, no evidence shall be given in proof of the terms of such contract etc. except the documents itself or secondary evidence of its contents in cases in which secondary evidence is admissible under the provisions contained therein. Therefore, since nothing has been shown from the Insurance Policy that terrorists activities were not covered, there is no reason to hold the same to be not covered. Letter Ex.R-4 relating to covering of terrorists risk was issued on 22.01.1990 i.e. after the accident in the present case which had occurred on 09.08.1989. The said letter Ex.R-4 covering of the terrorists risk is inconsequential as it is to be shown from the contract between the parties itself that these were excluded. In fact the primary contention of the National Insurance Company was that

¶41

AMIT KAUNDALits liability is limited to Rs.15000/- per passenger. The learned 2014.08.12 13:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶42

FAO No.1039 of 1993

¶43

-6-

¶44

Tribunal has accepted the same and fixed the liability of the Insurance Company to the said extent.

¶45

In the circumstances, there is no merit in these appeals and

¶46

the same are accordingly dismissed.

¶47

(S.S. SARON) JUDGE

¶48

23.07.2014 A.Kaundal

¶49

AMIT KAUNDAL 2014.08.12 13:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Mohinder Singh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Mohinder Singh and Others

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

Pritpal Singh Vs Authorized Officer Punjab & Sind Bank &Anr

(O&M) Inderpal Vs Mohan Lal

Mahender Singh Vs Satbir Singh

Gurcharan Singh Sodhi Vs Goetze (India) Ltd. Bahadurgarh, Patiala

Rajwant Kaur etc. Vs Sukhdev Singh etc.

Hakam Singh Vs State of Punjab