Dismissed

United India Insurance Company Limited v. Manna Lal and Ors.

Rajasthan HC9 Jul 2024CMA/1573/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeals by United India Insurance challenging a Motor Claims Tribunal award fastening pay-and-recover liability on non-claimants in injury claims arising from a road accident. The court found the insurer's rights protected by the pay-and-recover direction and dismissed both appeals, vacating the interim stay.

What the court decided

AI extract

United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Manna Lal and Ors. — Insurance | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:27956]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

¶3

AT JODHPUR

¶4

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1575/2013

¶5

United India Insurance Co. Ltd., A-14, Pratapnagar, Chittorgarh through Branch Manager through its Senior Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Residency Road, Jodhpur.

¶6

----Appellant/Non-claimant No.7

¶7

Versus

¶8

Mangi Lal S/o Navla Lohar, aged 40 years, Resident of Naya Gaon, Tehsil Javad, District Neemach (M.P.) (Claimant)

¶9

Hanuman S/o Chhuttan Lal Gurjar, aged 30 years, Resident of Village Nangal Santokda, Post Kherthal Mandi, District Alwar. (Driver/Non-claimant)

¶10

Shivram S/o Ghisa Ram Gurjar, Resident of Danthil, P.S. Raghpura, District Jaipur. (Owner/Non-claimant)

¶11

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Through Branch Manager, Meera Market, Chittorgarh. (Insurer/Nonclaimant)

¶12

Madhu Kumar K.L. S/o Lohitaksh, aged 45 years, Resident of R.N.09, Gaurav Smiriti Apartment, Sidco Uttamnagar 07 Post Nasik (Maharashtra).

¶13

Dinesh Kumar S/o Pukhraj Jain, aged 46 years, Resident of 09 M 2-12/2 June Sidco Shivaji Chowk, Nasik at present C/ o Kanti Lal Anjari Mal Agra Road, Post Dhuliya (Maharashtra)

¶14

M/s Mahendra and Mahendra Ltd., Nasik Plant No.01, 89 M.I.D.C. Satpur Nasik 422007 through manager and power of attorney holder Shri Mukun Kashinath Ner S/o Kashnath Ner, aged 33 years, Resident of 32/K/2/4/7 Shanti Nagar, Sidco Nasik, P.S. Ambad Nasik (Maharashtra)

¶15

----Respondents

¶16

Connected With

¶17

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1573/2013

¶18

United India Insurance Co. Ltd., A-14, Pratapnagar, Chittorgarh through Branch Manager through its Senior Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Residency Road, Jodhpur.

¶19

----Appellant/Non-claimant No.4

¶20

(2 of 7) [CMA-1575/2013]

¶21

[2024:RJ-JD:27956]

¶22

Versus

¶23

Manna Lal S/o Lala Lohar, aged 42 years, Resident of Kanawati, District Neemach (M.P.). (Claimant)

¶24

Hanuman S/o Chhuttan Lal Gurjar, aged 30 years, Resident of Village Nangal Santokda, Post Kherthal Mandi, District Alwar. (Driver/Non-claimant)

¶25

Shivram S/o Ghisa Ram Gurjar, Resident of Danthil, P.S. Raghpura, District Jaipur. (Owner/Non-claimant)

¶26

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Through Branch Manager, Meera Market, Chittorgarh. (Insurer/Nonclaimant)

¶27

Madhu Kumar K.L. S/o Lohitaksh, aged 45 years, Resident of R.N.09, Gaurav Smiriti Apartment, Sidco Uttamnagar 07 Post Nasik (Maharashtra).

¶28

Dinesh Kumar S/o Pukhraj Jain, aged 46 years, Resident of 09 M 2-12/2 June Sidco Shivaji Chowk, Nasik at present C/ o Kanti Lal Anjari Mal Agra Road, Post Dhuliya (Maharashtra)

¶29

M/s Mahendra and Mahendra Ltd., Nasik Plant No.01, 89 M.I.D.C. Satpur Nasik 422007 through manager and power of attorney holder Shri Mukun Kashinath Ner S/o Kashnath Ner, aged 33 years, Resident of 32/K/2/4/7 Shanti Nagar, Sidco Nasik, P.S. Ambad Nasik (Maharashtra)

¶30

----Respondents

¶31

For Appellant(s)	: Mr. Anil Kaushik.
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Jagdish Vyas,R-4.

¶32

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI

¶33

Judgment

¶34

09/07/2024

¶35

These civil misc. appeals have been filed by the appellant/non-claimant No.7-United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as ‘Insurance Company’) challenging the judgment and award dated 05.07.2013 passed by Judge, Motor Claims Tribunal, Chittorgarh (‘Tribunal’) in MAC Case

[2024:RJ-JD:27956]

[CMA-1575/2013]

(3 of 7)

No.309/2011 (651/2005) and 302/2011 (644/2005) respectively, whereby while awarding compensation in favour of claimants of Rs.36,900/- and Rs.94,500/- respectively, the liability to pay the compensation of Rs.22,140/- and Rs.56,700/- respectively, has been fastened upon non-claimants No.4 to 7 jointly and severally. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that claimants filed a petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chittorgarh alleging therein that on 21.08.2005 claimants along with Narayan, Rukma, Bhagwan Lal along with 10-12 people were travelling in Bolero vehicles (MH-15TR-U-935 & MH-15TR-U-936). In each vehicle, 8-10 persons were sitting. In the night around, 09:00 pm, on the Highway, near Shambhupura, a Trolla bearing registration number HR-47Q-6285 was parked without tale light and parking light. The drivers of Bolero vehicles could not see the trolla standing in the road due to high beam lights coming from the vehicles from opposite side, as a result of which the Bolero vehicles dashed with Trolla standing in the middle of the road. The claimants thus filed claim petition claiming compensation on account of injuries suffered by them in the said accident to the tune of Rs.6,80,000/- and Rs.10,86,000/- respectively. FIR of the aforesaid incident was lodged in the concerned police station and the investigation of the FIR culminated in the submission of Challan against the drivers of all the three vehicles.

¶40

After registration of the claim petitions, notices were issued to the non-claimants. After service of the summons on behalf of non-claimant No.6/owner (manufacture) of Bolero vehicles, reply to claim petitions was filed alleging therein that the vehicles owned by it, were being carried under a contract from Mumbai to

[2024:RJ-JD:27956]

[CMA-1575/2013]

(4 of 7)

Jaipur. It was averred in the reply that the accident had occurred due to negligence of driver of Trolla, who parked the Trolla on Highway without parking light and tale lights being put on.

¶45

On behalf of appellant/non-claimant No.7, reply to claim petitions was filed stating therein that the vehicles were insured by it under transit policy and the premium charged by it was with respect to own damage of the charges. It was further alleged in the reply that no premium was charged covering the risk of occupants of the vehicles and thus it was prayed that since the drivers of Bolero vehicles allowed passengers to sit and travel in the vehicle, for which the appellant could not have been held liable to pay compensation.

¶46

On behalf of non-claimant No.3, New India Insurance Company, reply was filed while denying the averments made in the claim petitions. It was inter-alia stated that drivers of Bolero jeep were plying their vehicle rashly and negligently and the Trolla, which was parked on its right side while following the rules of parking, dashed in the standstill vehicle and accident took place.

¶47

Despite service upon the other non-claimants No.1, 2, 4 and 5, none appeared and, therefore, exparte proceedings were drawn against them.

¶48

On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal proceeded to frame four issues. So far as Issue No.3 is concerned, the burden to prove the same was fastened upon the present appellant. In support of their claim, the claimants examined AW.1 Mannalal and AW.2 Mangilal and other witnesses. Claimant, namely, Mangilal exhibited documents Ex.185, 186 and 190.

[2024:RJ-JD:27956]

[CMA-1575/2013]

(5 of 7)

Claimant Mangilal sustained 8% permanent disability. Claimant, namely, Mannalal exhibited documents Ex.12, 13, and Ex.14 to 179 & 181. Claimant Mannalal sustained 15% permanent disability. On behalf of appellant Insurance Company NAW.2 Ajay Francis was examined and insurance policy was exhibited.

¶53

The learned Tribunal after considering the oral as well as documentary evidence vide its judgment and award dated 05.07.2013 proceeded to partly allow the claim petitions and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.36,900/- and Rs.94,500/- respectively, the liability to pay the compensation of Rs.22,140/- and Rs.56,700/- respectively, has been fastened upon non-claimants No.4 to 7 jointly and severally.

¶54

Being aggrieved by impugned judgment and award dated 05.07.2013, the appellant/non-claimant United India Insurance Co. Ltd., has preferred the instant appeals. 10. While admitting the appeals, a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 15.04.2014 stayed the direction issued by the Tribunal vide impugned judgment directing the appellant to satisfy the award and thereafter to recover the amount from the owner.

¶55

Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Bolero jeep vehicles were insured with the appellant under the transit policy and no premium was charged to cover the risk of the occupants of the vehicle other than the driver and own damages to the vehicle. Learned counsel for the appellant thus submitted that when premium was charged covering the risk of the occupants, which fact was amply proved by appellant’s witness viz. NAW.1, therefore, the Tribunal has erred in holding the

[2024:RJ-JD:27956]

[CMA-1575/2013]

(6 of 7)

appellant to first pay the compensation and then recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the entire liability to pay the compensation is liable to be fastened upon the owner and insurer of Trolla No. HR-47Q-6285, which was parked by its driver on the Highway without parking light and the tale lights were on and thus fastening the liability upon the present appellant to the tune of 60% being illegal, deserves to be set aside and the appellant insurance company deserves to be exonerated.

¶60

Learned counsel for the appellant thus prayed that the impugned judgment passed by the learned Tribunal be modified while exonerating the appellant from its liability to pay the compensation to the claimant. 13. None appears on behalf of respondent No.7. Service upon respondents No.5 and 6 i.e. drivers of respective vehicles was dispensed with vide order dated 07.11.2017 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court. 14. I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 15. This Court finds that the learned Tribunal after considering the material available before it has partially decided Issue No.3 in favour of insurance compapny while holding that there was violation of the conditions of the insurance policy on the part of drivers and owner of both the vehicles and has thus has rightly extended the right to first pay the compensation quantified by it and thereafter recover the same from the owners of the offending vehicles.

[2024:RJ-JD:27956]

[CMA-1575/2013]

(7 of 7)

Since the right of the appellant insurance company has been sufficiently protected by issuing direction to pay and recover, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the judgment and award passed by learned Tribunal.

¶65

Accordingly, both the misc. appeals are hereby dismissed. No costs. The interim order dated 15.04.2014 is vacated. The appellant insurance company shall pay the compensation to the respective claimants and it shall have the right to recover the same from the owner(s) of the vehicles. Stay Applications also stand rejected.

¶66

(DR. NUPUR BHATI),J

¶67

86 & 87-DJ/-

United India Insurance Company Limited v. Manna Lal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

United India Insurance Company Limited v. Manna Lal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shahnaj and Ors. Vs Surpal Singh S Raol and Ors.

Thanabhai Vs Mohan Bhai

The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs Mst. Ramkanya

Hari Nat @ Papu Vs Keshar Devi and Ors.

Sagar Enterprises Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt. Kamala @ Jhamaku and Ors. Vs Pukhraj Deshantari and Ors.