The High Court of Uttarakhand dismissed the insurance company’s appeal against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award, holding that the Tribunal’s decision was meritorious and entitled to respect despite the vehicle’s replacement date.
The appeal is dismissed; the awarded amount shall be released to the claimants with accrued interest.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
AO No. 432 of 2011
National Insurance Company Limited having its registered office at 3, Middleton Street, Kolkatta through Senior Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, 5/222, Canal Road, Tikonia, Haldwani
..................Appellant
-versus-
Respondent nos. 2 & 3 being minor through their mother and natural guardian Smt. Deepa Devi.
.............Respondents
Advocates appeared in the case:-
For Appellant : Mr. V.K.Kohli, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. I.P.Kohli, learned counsel for the appellant.
1
For Respondents : Mr. Akshay, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Sandeep Kothari for the respondent nos. 6 & 7.
Date of hearing and Judgement : 13.12.2021
Sri S.K.Mishra, J.
1. Heard V.K.Kohli, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. I.P.Kohli, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Akshay, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Sandeep Kothari, learned counsel for the respondent no.6.
2. None is present for the other respondents.
3. The limited question involved in this case is that the insurance company has challenged the correctness of the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum District Judge, Tehri Garhwal, in MAC Case No. 10/2010, Smt. Deepa Devi and others vs. Sarat Singh Negi & others, dated 06.07.2011, wherein the Tribunal allowed the application and granted a sum of Rs. 4,79,419/- as compensation with simple interest at the rate of 5% in favour of the claimant and directed the Insurance Company to indemnify the claimants. The Tribunal has not granted any recovery right to the Insurance Company from the owner or driver of the vehicle.
4. The grievance of the Tribunal as put forth by Mr. V.K.Kohli, learned Senior Counsel for the Insurance Company is that the vehicle was not having a valid commercial permit as it could not have run more than 9 years from the date it is purchased. The dates appearing in this case are not in dispute.
2
5. The vehicle MAXI Cab bearing Registration No. U.P. 07 K-9247 was registered with the Transport Department, Dehradun on 27th October, 1999. In 2004, the permit was issued in favour of Sharad Singh Negi/opposite party no. 6 permitting him to ply the commercial vehicle from 4th November, 2004 to 3rd November, 2009. However, in column no. 7, the certificate mentions that the date of replacement of the vehicle is 26th October, 2008. The accident took place on 15.09.2009.
6. It is contended by learned Senior Counsel for the Insurance Company that since the date of replacement of the vehicle was mentioned in the permit to be 26th October, 2008, the Insurance Company shall not liable to pay any compensation for the claimant for an accident that took place on 15.09.2009. Even though, the permit was valid till 3rd of November, 2009, as the vehicle was not fit for commercial use. However, this contention was decided by the learned Tribunal against the Insurance Company on the ground that as per Section 74 sub-section (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the State Transport Authority does not have this jurisdiction or authority to decide the age of the vehicle up to which it can be operated. As per Section 59 of the aforesaid Act, it is the Central Government has the jurisdiction to decide up to what age a vehicle can be operated.
7. Moreover, very important aspect which is taken into consideration by the learned Tribunal is that the Insurance Company’s witness DW1 admitted that the vehicle had a valid permit till 03.11.2009. It is further seen that the even in the Insurance
3
Company put forth the argument that after 26.10.2008 the vehicle was not fit to be operated as a commercial vehicle, yet it granted an insurance coverage to it from 17.02.2009 till 16.02.2010 on the receipt of appropriate premium.
8. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the award passed by the Tribunal requires no interference. Hence, there is no merit in the appeal.
9. The appeal is dismissed. Awarded amount has already been deposited by the Insurance Company before the Tribunal. The same may be released in its entirety along with accrued interest in favour of the claimant. Statutory deposit be transmitted forthwith to the Tribunal, by the Registry.
10. There shall be no order as to costs.
11. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.
(S.K.Mishra)
KKS
4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was correct to award compensation despite the vehicle having a replaced date prior to the accident while carrying a valid permit.
Whether the State Transport Authority has jurisdiction to decide the operational age of a vehicle under Section 74 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
National Insurance Company Limited
Smt. Deepa Devi
Kumari Priya
Kumari Jiya
Khem Singh
Smt. Amla Devi
S. K. Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
