Partly allowed

New India Ass.Co.Ltd. v. Achhari Devi etc.

Punjab & Haryana HC20 Mar 2014FAO/2184/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

New India Insurance Company appealed an award granting compensation to heirs of a pilgrim killed when a truck carrying devotees crashed. The truck was operating against Section 147 of the Act. The Court dismissed the appeal but held the insurer could recover amounts paid from the vehicle owner and driver. Parties bear their own costs.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed but modified to allow insurer to recover payment from vehicle owner/driver; costs borne by parties.

New India Ass.Co.Ltd. Vs Achhari Devi etc. — Insurance | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

¶2

FAO No.2184 of 2003 Date of Decision: March 20, 2014

¶3

New India Assurance Company Limited

¶4

..... APPELLANT

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

Achhari Devi & others

¶7

..... RESPONDENTS

¶8

. . .

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASPAL SINGH

¶10

. . .

¶11

PRESENT : - Mr. L.M. Suri, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate, for the appellant.

¶12

None for the respondents.

¶13

. . .

¶14

Jaspal Singh, J

¶15

New India Assurance Company Limited, Chandigarh, has preferred the instant appeal feeling dissatisfied against award dated January 13, 2003 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) in MACT Case No.39 of 16.9.1998 challenging the same on the ground that the deceased was travelling in goods carrier and there being violation of the provisions of Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the Act’) and policy conditions, the

¶16

Kumar Avin 2014.03.21 15:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh

¶17

FAO No.2184 of 2003 [2]

¶18

passengers travelling in it or their legal heirs are not entitled for the compensation as they were not insured with the appellant company. Even otherwise, the vehicle in which they were travelling was a goods carrier and no liability could be fastened on the insurance company, of the amount awarded to their dependants and further, that the passengers travelling were gracious passengers and they are also otherwise not entitled to any compensation.

¶19

During pendency of the present appeal, it was dismissed as against the claimants i.e. respondent Nos.1 and 2 by this Court vide order dated May 29, 2003. Respondent No.3, owner of offending truck No.HR-26-0439 was also served but neither he nor any other person duly authorized on his behalf opted to appear.

¶20

I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and gone through the record available.

¶21

It is an undisputed fact that daughter of claimant/ respondent No.1, Achhari Devi died in an accident when she was travelling for pilgrimage to Naina Devi alongwith sangat in the offending truck and Sahib Singh – respondent No.3 was driving at that time. Sahib Singh – respondent No.3 also appeared on behalf of the claimants and has deposed that the accident occurred when the vehicle was en-route to Naina Devi.

¶22

Kumar Avin 2014.03.21 15:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh

¶23

FAO No.2184 of 2003 [3]

¶24

As a truck came from the opposite direction, he tried to allow him to pass away and took his vehicle on the left side of the route but unfortunately, his truck fell in the gorge. So, one thing is evident from the aforesaid depositions of Achhari Devi – claimant and that of Sahib Singh, driver of the offending truck that the truck was carrying devotees to Naina Devi on the fateful day. Carrying of passengers/ devotees in a goods carriage is violative of Section 147 of the Act as well as that of the terms

¶25

and conditions of the insurance company. Carrying of passengers in the goods carriage for which no premium is paid, does not bind the insurance company, So, the liability, if any, was that of the owner of the offending vehicle.

¶26

In the light of what has been discussed above, the appeal is dismissed but with modification that in case the insurance company has already paid the compensation in compliance of the impugned award, it shall be entitled to recover it from respondent No.3, owner/ driver of the offending vehicle. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, parties are left to bear their own costs.

¶27

(Jaspal Singh) March 20, 2014 Judge avin

¶28

Kumar Avin 2014.03.21 15:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh

New India Ass.Co.Ltd. v. Achhari Devi etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

New India Ass.Co.Ltd. v. Achhari Devi etc.

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

(O&M) National Insurance Company Vs Sukhbir Singh and Ors.

State of Punjab & Ors. Vs Kartar Singh Brar

Hans Raj Vs Kanta Devi and Ors.

Anil Kumar Sachdeva and Ors. Vs Kamaljeet Sachdeva and Ors.

Taranjit Singh Vs Balwinder Singh

Krishna Kakeri Joint Farming Society etc. Vs Guru Nanak Coop. Joint Farming Society etc.