2009(3) Supreme 707
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.B. Sinha and P. Sathasivam, JJ.
Balbir Kaur & Ors. — Appellants
versus
New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Ors. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1838 of 2009
Decided on : 15-04-2009
(1997) 1 SCC 66; JT 2001 (10) SC 396 – Referred.
(b) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 147 r/w section 166 – High Court absolving the Insurance Company from liability – Owner of the vehicle not challenging that part of the impugned judgment – Accordingly, liability to pay the awarded amount lies on him. (Para 14)
Facts of the case :
1. The deceased was riding on a two-wheeler (scooter) which was hit by a bus. He suffered multiple grievous injuries and succumbed to them.
2. Appellants filed an application before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Delhi (Tribunal) under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming a sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- towards compensation for death of Baljit Singh inter alia on the premise that the accident was caused by reason of rash and negligent driving of the said bus by its driver.
3. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 7,96,000/- to the appellants.
4. Respondent No. 1 preferred an appeal thereagainst before the High Court. The High Court set aside the award passed by the Tribunal opining that as the cover note of the insurance had been issued on 15.03.1996 but the same was to take effect from 19.03.1996 and the accident having taken place on 18.03.1996, the insurer was not liable therefor.
Finding of the Court :
Insurance Company should not recover the amount from the appellant, but can do so from the owner and the driver of the vehicle.
Result : Appeal partly allowed.
JUDGMENT
S.B. Sinha, J.—
1. Baljit Singh, deceased was riding on a two-wheeler (scooter) bearing Registration No. DAB 6529. The said scooter was hit by a bus driven by one Ramesh Singh Rawat. He suffered multiple grievous injuries in the said accident. He was taken to Deen Dayal Upadhya, Hospital, New Delhi where he was declared ‘brought dead’.
2. Appellants filed an application before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Delhi (Tribunal) under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the Act”) claiming a sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- towards compensation for death of Baljit Singh inter alia on the premise that the accident was caused by reason of rash and negligent driving of the said bus by its driver Shri Ramesh Singh Rawat.
3. In the said claim petition, the income of the deceased was stated to be Rs. 4,000/- per month. He was aged 34 years on the date of accident. Indisputably, in relation to the said accident, a criminal proceeding was also initiated under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code.
4. The Tribunal upon considering the materials brought on record by the parties awarded a sum of Rs. 7,96,000/- to the appellants. Respondent No. 1 preferred an appeal thereagainst before the High Court. By reason of the impugned judgment, the High Court set aside the award passed by the Tribunal opining that as the cover note of the insurance had been issued on 15.03.1996 but the same was to take effect from 19.03.1996 and the accident having taken place on 18.03.1996, the insurer was not liable therefor.
5. Appellants are, thus, before us.
6. By an order dated 13.08.2007, this Court issued a limited notice to the following effect:
“Issue notice confined to the question as to whether in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and, particularly, in view of the fact that the petitioners have already withdrawn the amount deposited by the Insurance Company, this Court can issue a direction as to whether the Insurance Company may recover the amount from the owner and the driver in the same proceedings.”
7. Before adverting to the contentions raised before us, we may notice that the High Court while issuing notice to the appellants directed the respondent No. 1 herein to deposit the awarded amount pursuant whereto the said amount has been deposited. Appellants have also withdrawn the same.
However, the High Court, in its impugned judgment, directed refund of the said amount to the respondent No. 1.
8. The Tribunal in the said claim petition inter alia formulated the following issues:
“1. Whether the insurance cover in the present case was effectively only from 19.3.96 to 10.3.97, replaced on behalf of R-3 in their WO7OPR3.
2. Whether premium insurance policy referred to in above issue No. 1 was paid on 15.3.96 and if so to what effect?”
9. On the first issue, the Tribunal noticed that in the cover note the policy was shown to have been issued with effect from 18.03.1996 in view of a circular issued by the insurance company but it had not been given effect to. Having regard to the fact that a photocopy thereof had been produced, it was held:
“...Besides the proposal form relating to the impugned insurance policy has also not been produced to show as to what were the terms and conditions on which the insurance policy was to be executed with regard to the offending vehicle. There is no material on record to show that the insured was made aware of the office circular Ex-R3W1/B that if there was no other insurance policy in operation with regard to the offending vehicle immediately preceding 15.3.96 in these circumstances the insurance policy covering third party interest would be issued three days after the receipt of the proposal. The material on record placed by both the petitioner as well as respondent No. 3 in clear terms shows that the injured had made the payment of the premium on 15.3.96 and there was no reason for the insurance company to have issued the insurance policy covering third party interest w.e.f.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.