SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1997 Supreme(Kar) 26

Karnataka High Court
Judges : Hari Nath Tilhari
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. - Appellant
Versus
SHIVALINGAMMA - Respondent
M. F. A. 1642 Of 1993
Decided On : 01/13/1997
Advocates Appeared :
A.N.KRISHNA SWAMYMY, S.P.SHANKAR, SHANTHA W.JOSHI

The duty of insurers to disclose all material facts and the interpretation of insurance contracts in the context of the Indian Motor Tariff Rules and the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Headnote:

Motor Vehicles Act - Liability to pay compensation in certain cases on the principle of no fault - Section 140 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the liability to pay compensation under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the interpretation of the provisions of Section 149 regarding the duty of insurers to satisfy judgments and awards against the persons insured. The court also examined the Indian Motor Tariff Rules and the duty of good faith in insurance contracts.

Fact of the Case:

The appeal was filed by Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. challenging the order passed by the Tribunal under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, regarding the liability to pay compensation for a fatal accident involving a tractor and a trailer. The appellant contended that it was not liable to pay compensation under Section 140 due to the insurance arrangement of the tractor and trailer.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the appellant was liable to pay compensation under Section 140 of the Act, even if the tractor and trailer were insured with different companies. The court emphasized the duty of insurers to disclose all material facts and held that the provisions of the Indian Motor Tariff Rules could not be read as terms and conditions of the insurance contract.

Issues: The main issue was the liability of the appellant to pay compensation under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, based on the insurance arrangement of the tractor and trailer.

Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the provisions of Section 140 and Section 149 of the Act, as well as the Indian Motor Tariff Rules, to determine the liability of the appellant to pay compensation. The court emphasized the duty of insurers to disclose all material facts and held that the provisions of the Indian Motor Tariff Rules could not be read as terms and conditions of the insurance contract.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the court affirmed the order passed by the Tribunal under Section 140. The appellant was directed to transfer the deposited amount to the Tribunal for expedient payment to the claimants, and the Tribunal was directed to dispose of the claim expeditiously within six months.

HARI NATH TILHARI, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the present appellant,. e. , Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. , which has been respondent No. 5 in the main claim petition, challenging the order passed by Mr. V. Jaganathan, Addl. Distt. Judge, M. A. C. T. II, Mandya, disposing of the application under Section 140 of the Act and ordering that all the petitioners together are entitled for interim compensation of Rs. 25,000 under Section 140 of the act with simple interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of application till date of realisation. The Tribunal further found that the respondents,. e. , the owner and insurer of the tractor as well as the owner and insurer of the trailer are jointly and severally responsible to pay the sum of Rs. 25,000 to the petitioners.

( 2 ) IN application it has been alleged that on 9. 7. 1991 the deceased Shanthu was going through 'a' circle, Malavalli Town towards Pete and he was moving on the road on correct side from 'a' circle. At that time the respondent No. 1 in the claim petition was coming on the tractor bearing no. MYN 5879 and the trailer No. 3910 driving that tractor and trailer in rash and negligent manner and hit the deceased. The deceased fell down due to the accident and sustained several multiple head injuries and later died on the spot. Objection statement had been filed by all the respondents to the main petition under Section 166 of the Act as well as to the application under section 140 of the Act. The respondents to the claim petition including present appellant and respondent Nos. 6 to 8 in the memo of appeal in their objections to Section 140 application stated that both the vehicles which were involved in the accident had been insured. The factum of the accident taking place on 9. 7. 1991 had also not been disputed. Respondent No. 4 in its objections stated that trailer bearing No. 3910 was not insured with respondent No. 4 to the claim petition,. e. , that it was insured with present appellant on the date of accident. Hence the respondent No. 4 denied its liability to pay compensation and alleged that deceased was hit by the trailer. In the objections filed by the respondent No. 5 it has been stated that: vehicle involved in the accident tractor No. MYN 5879 is insured with respondent No. 4 and the respondent No. 1 was the employee of respondent No. 2 who insured the tractor with respondent no. 4. The accident took place due to the act of respondent No. 1 for which respondent No. 2 is liable and respondent No. 4 is vicariously liable to pay any compensation to be awarded. It is on the basis of these pleadings the present appellant who has been respondent No. 5 denied its liability. It has nowhere been alleged in this application that there was any breach of any condition of the policy of insurance.

( 3 ) THE Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings of the respondents tentatively found that it is an admitted fact that both the vehicles,. e. , tractor and trailer were involved in the accident and that tractor and trailer have been insured motor vehicles with the insurance companies and it recorded the finding to that effect as well. It held that it has also been established that both the vehicles involved in the accident are insured and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to interim compensation as per Section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on the principle of 'no fault' It further observed that in the statement of objections of respondent No. 4,. e. , United India insurance Co. Ltd. , it has been stated that deceased was hit by trailer and respondent No. 4 is not liable to pay the compensation, and it observed that in view of the rival stands taken by respondent No. 4 that it is not necessary at this stage to enquire into the respective pleadings raised by respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and passed the order as referred to above, granting interim compensation under Section 140 of the Act to the tune o





Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top