Back
2014 Supreme(Bom) 391
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT AURANGABAD
K.U. CHANDIWAL, J.
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Though its Branch Manager
Versus
Meera & Others
First Appeal No. 1921 of 2013 With Civil Application N. 9092 of 2013
Decided on: 17-02-2014
For the Appellant:S.G. Chapalgaonkar, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1, R4 & R5, P.V. Ambade, R6, A.R. Shinde, Advocates.
The legal principle established is that the evidence must meet the legal standard to establish the involvement of the insured vehicle in a claim for compensation.
Headnote:
Insurance - Motor Accident Claim - Involvement of Vehicle - Lack of Evidence
Fact of the Case:
Raju Uttam Choudhary was involved in a motorcycle accident and filed a claim for compensation. The police inspector's investigation implicated the owner of a Maruti Zen car, leading to a joint and several liability award against the owner and the Insurance Company.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence provided by the police inspector was insufficient to establish the involvement of the insured vehicle, leading to the conclusion that the Insurance Company could not be held responsible for the claim.
Issues: The main issue was the adequacy of evidence to establish the involvement of the insured vehicle in the accident, and consequently, the liability of the Insurance Company.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the evidence provided by the police inspector was not credible and did not meet the legal standard for establishing the involvement of the insured vehicle, leading to the decision to set aside the award against the Insurance Company.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the award in the Motor Accident Claim Petition was set aside with respect to the Insurance Company.
1. Heard. Admit. Heard finally.
2. The award of Rs.6,22,000/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. in M.A.C.P. No. 75 of 2011, recorded by the learned Member, M.A.C.T. Jalna dated 04.05.2013 is assailed by the Insurance Company.
3. On 8.5.2010, Raju Uttam Choudhary was driving his motorcycle with pillion rider. He was knocked by offending vehicle. F.I.R. vide Crime No. 63 of 2010, dated 8.5.2010 was registered at Badnapur police station against the unknown vehicle.
4. Police Inspector, Chandrakant, allegedly had instructions of Superintendent of Police, Jalna, carried further investigation and prosecuted owner of Maruti Zen car bearing registration MH-21-V-.541 (original respondent No.1 Dilip). Taking base of this, the learned Member relied upon evidence of said Chandrakant, for involvement of vehicle, had recorded award fixing joint and several liability on owner of said vehicle alongwith Insurance Company.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company confined his submissions to involvement of vehicle and the inadequacy of the material to rope in said vehicle and consequently the Insurance Company.
6. The fact remains, the matter hinges to the narration of Chandrakant, a Police Officer, who allegedly carried investigation. Reading his evidence, it is illustrative that he has done nothing in the matter barring fling of final report. He says, having learnt by discreet sources of involvement of the vehicle, however, such discreet source or statement of any person under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. was not annexed to final report nor the said person was examined before the learned Member. There was no authorization to Police Inspector, Chandrakant to carry investigation in the matter, otherwise it was imperative for him to have disclosed the same in the final report or in his evidence.
7. The learned Judge has observed in para 13, as under:-
“13. PW-2 Chandrakant Savale is a P.I. of Local Crime Branch Jalna. He has entered into witness box and said that investigation of Crime No. 63/2010 was entrusted to him and during the investigation, it was detected that respondent No.1 has caused the accident by his Maruti Zen car, and, accordingly said car came to be seized and after investigation he has submitted the charge sheet against respondent No.1 in the court of J.M.F.C. Badnapur. In the searching, cross examination taken by the learned advocate for the insurance company, respondent No.1 has admitted that initially investigation was carried by P.S. Badnapur, but, thereafter, as per oral direction of the Superintendent of Police, Jalna, investigation was entrusted to him. He has further admitted that on receiving secret information he detected culprit and seized the vehicle which has caused the accident in question. He has further admitted that he has not recorded any statement. Taking assistance of these admissions brought on record in the cross examination of PW 2 Chandrakant Savale, the learned advocate for the insurance company has strenuously urged before the Tribunal that when as per FIR dash was given by unknown vehicle and though matter pertains to P.S. Badnapur, but, investigation carried by PW-2 Chandrakant Savale, LCB Jalna. PW-2 Chandrakant Savale, is also not able to disclose source of secret information and he has also not recorded any statement shows that the claimants in collusion with police have falsely implicated respondent No.1 in a crime so as to get compensation from the insurance company. In support of his submission, the learned advocate for respondent No.2 has heavily relied on judgment of Karnataka High Court bearing M.F.A. No. 4003/2002, New India Assurance Company vs. G.N. Gopali Gouda and others decided on 5.7.2005. The facts of the cited case are that the petitioner therein was a police constable who has filed injury claim before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal. The FIR was lodged by the eye witnesses stating petitioner drove a scooter in rash and negligent manner and dashed against a tree and got injured. B
