Dismissed

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jatin Soni and Ors.

Rajasthan HC1 Feb 2024CMA/2639/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this motor accident appeal, the Insurance Company contended that the policy was invalid because the vehicle was run on hire, breaching policy conditions. The Court found witness admissions proved all passengers were known to each other and no hire payment was established. Rejecting the breach argument and finding no merit regarding interest, the appeal was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is dismissed as devoid of merit; stay petition and pending applications are disposed of.

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Jatin… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:5424]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2639/2017

¶4

United India Insurance Company Limited, Through Its Legally Constituted Authority, T.p.hub, 74A, Bhati-N-Plaza, Pal Road, Jodhpur.

¶5

----Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Jatin Soni S/o Vinod Kumar Soni, Resident Of Bhadra, District Hanumangarh.

¶8

Manoj S/o Kalu Ram Goswami, Driver.

¶9

Jaideep S/o Kalu Ram Goswami, Owner. Both Residents Of Ward No. 22, Bhadra, District Hanumangarh.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Jagdish Vyas for Insurance Co. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Nitin Trivedi for owner & driver

¶12

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

¶13

Judgment

¶14

01/02/2024

¶15

The present appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company against the judgment and award dated 30.06.2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhadra, District Hanumangarh in Claim Case No.10/2016 (CIS No.10/2016) whereby an award for a sum of Rs.81,450/- with interest @ 9% per annum from date of filing of the claim petition qua the injuries sustained by the injured claimant has been awarded in favour of him. 2. Brief facts as per the claim petition are that on 25.09.2015, claimant Jatin Soni was travelling in car No.RJ49-CA-0646 driven by Manoj and owned by Jaideep from Bhadra to Khatushyamji. When they reached Kishangarh (Dhani Charnan), a cow came in

[2024:RJ-JD:5424]

[CMA-2639/2017]

(2 of 6)

front of the car and as the car was driven rashly and negligently by its driver, the same could not be controlled and hence, overturned. As a result, the other traveller in the car, Sanjay Kumar fell out and being run over by the car, died on the spot and claimant Jatin Soni suffered serious injuries.

¶20

The Insurance Company has challenged the impugned judgment/award on the ground that the vehicle in question was, at the time of accident, run on hire and the same being a breach of the insurance policy, the insurance company could not have been held liable to indemnify the owner. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company submitted that the policy in question comprised of a specific condition that the policy shall cover use of the vehicle for any purpose other than hire or reward. As the vehicle in question was being driven on hire, in terms of the above condition, the policy would not cover the compensation qua injuries to the claimant. To substantiate his arguments, learned counsel relied upon the statements of the present claimant Jatin as made in Claim Case No.46/2015 (CIS No.48/2015) preferred by the legal representatives of Sanjay Kumar, who expired in the same accident, wherein he admitted the fact that the car was hired.

¶21

Counsel further pointed out to the specific averment in the claim petition itself to the effect that the driver and owner of the vehicle are neither relatives nor acquaintances of the claimants. 5. Learned counsel submitted that what can be concluded from the above facts is that neither of the passengers travelling in the vehicle were known to each other nor were they relatives and hence, it is clear that the vehicle was hired and several persons

[2024:RJ-JD:5424]

[CMA-2639/2017]

(3 of 6)

were travelling in the capacity of passengers. Thus the same would not be covered by the policy in question and hence, the insurance company cannot be held liable to pay the compensation. He submitted that liability, if any, would solely be of the owner and the insurance company deserves to be exonerated.

¶26

On quantum, learned counsel submitted that the rate of interest as awarded by the learned Tribunal being on a higher side, deserves interference. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimant submitted that it was proved on record that Manoj, driver of the vehicle and other passengers were very well known to each other. Learned counsel relied upon statement of NAW.1-Manoj, driver of the vehicle, who specifically admitted that all the persons travelling in the car were known to him and they all were on the way to the temple at Khatu Shyamji. He further admitted that the car was of the ownership of his elder brother and that the same was neither rented nor hired. He further specifically admitted that Jatin was his friend.

¶27

Learned counsel further submitted that even NAW.2-Ashish, Assistant Manager of the Insurance company, admitted that he did not conduct any enquiry regarding the factum of the car being hired. Further, no evidence was led by the Insurance Company to prove that any rent/amount was paid by anyone to hire the car. Therefore, it was not proved on record that the car was hired. Rather, on the contrary, it was proved that all the passengers were known to each other.

¶28

Learned counsel appearing for the owner and driver, while adopting the arguments of learned counsel for the claimants qua

(4 of 6)

[2024:RJ-JD:5424]

[CMA-2639/2017]

the factum of the vehicle not being hired, supported the impugned judgment.

¶33

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶34

NAW-1, Manoj, in his cross examination, admitted as under:

¶35

“ ;g lgh gS fd dkj esa cSBs fdlh ls dksbZ fdjk;k ugha fy;kA dkj esa cSBs lHkh lokj esjs tkudkj FksaA ge lHkh yksx /kksd yxkus [kkVw “;keth tk jgs FksA ”

¶36

He further submitted as under:

¶37

“ ;g dguk xyr gS fd nq?kZVuk ds oDr dkj fdjk;s ij py jgh gksA ”

¶38

and further as under:

¶39

“ ;g dguk xyr gS fd tfru dkj esa fdjk;s dh lokjh ds :i esa ;k=k dj jgk gksA tfru gekjs Ldwy esa ugha i<+rk FkkA tfru esjk nksLr gSA ;g dguk xyr gS fd tfru esjk nksLr uk gks vkSj esjk ifjfpr uk gksA ”

¶40

NAW.2-Ashish, in his cross examination, admitted as under:

¶41

^ “ eq>s /;ku ugha erd lat; dqekj okgu&MªkbZoj o ekfyd ds Ldwy esa ukSdjh djrk gSA ;g lgh gS fd geus nq?kZVuk o chek ikWylh dh “krksaZ ds mYya?ku ckcr dksbZ tkap ugha djokbZA ;g ckr lgh gS fd dkj dh iSdst ikWylh gksA dkj esa lokj tfru o lat; ds vykok eSa fdlh dks ugha tkurkA tfru ls eSa dHkh ugha feykA e **** rd lat; D;k dke djrk Fkk eq>s tkudkjh ugha gS eSa mlds ?kj dHkh ugha x;kA ;g lgh gS fd dkj ekfyd] pkyd o tfru ls eSaus dkj fdjk;s ckcr dksbZ iwNrkN ugha dhA iqfyl pkyku dh izfr0 gekjs dk;kZy; esa gSA eq>s ;kn ugha dh iqfyl us viuh tk¡p esa dkj fdjk;s ij uk py dj futh mi;ksx esa py jgh gks ekuk gksA e`rd us fdldks o fdruk fdjk;k fn;k eq>s irk ughaA ”

¶42

A perusal of the above statements prove beyond reasonable doubt that the passengers travelling in the vehicle were definitely known to each other. Manoj, driver of the vehicle, has specifically admitted that Jatin was his friend and the other travellers, Sanjay

[2024:RJ-JD:5424]

[CMA-2639/2017]

(5 of 6)

Kumar and Vicky were known to him. Further, there is no evidence available on record to show that any rent was paid by any of the passengers to the driver/owner of the vehicle neither is there any receipt to suggest so.

¶47

Further, it is an admitted case of the witness of insurance company itself that no investigation qua the said aspect was conducted by the Insurance Company. The witness, rather admitted that he was not aware whether any amount was paid by the claimant to anyone. In view of the above statements and specific admissions, finding as reached by the learned Tribunal does not deserve any interference, the same being totally in consonance with the material evidence available on record. There is nothing on record to believe that the vehicle was hired. Therefore, the ground as raised by learned counsel for the Insurance Company that there was a breach of the policy conditions, does not seem to be a plausible one.

¶48

The finding on issues No.3 & 4 as decided against the Insurance Company by learned Tribunal, is hereby affirmed. 12. No ground regarding the quantum of compensation has been raised by learned counsel for the appellant before this Court. Hence, the same is not gone into.

¶49

So far as the ground of rate of interest being on higher side as raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is concerned, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the same too as the same was the prevalent rate of interest at that point of time. Further, the rate of 9% interest per annum cannot be said to be so exorbitant as to interfere with the same.

¶50

(6 of 6) [CMA-2639/2017]

¶51

[2024:RJ-JD:5424]

¶52

In view of above observations and analysis, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and award dated 30.06.2017. The appeal being devoid of merit is hence, dismissed .

¶53

Stay petition and all pending applications also stand disposed of .

¶54

(REKHA BORANA),J

¶55

57-SPhophaliya/T.Singh/Vij/-

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jatin Soni and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jatin Soni and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Smt. Sayra Khan

Lrs of Basantilal Vs Shyam Sunder

Icici Lombard General Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs Purn Ram and Ors.

Smt.Varsha Vs Laxmi Narain and Ors.

Iqbal Mohammad Vs Khemraj

Om Dutt and Ors. Vs Manoj and Ors.