Back
2024 Supreme(Bom) 648
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
M.M. SATHAYE, J.
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited – Appellant
Versus
Kekanaje Balkrishna Bhat – Respondent
First Appeal No. 252 of 2021
Decided On : 18-09-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Sarthak Diwan.
For the Respondent: Shailendra Kanetkar.
IMPORTANT POINT
The court reinforced that in claims under the Motor Vehicles Act, the burden of proof lies with the insurer to demonstrate policy breaches.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 166, 173 - The court upheld the Tribunal's decision to award compensation, interpreting the provisions of the Act favorably towards claimants, emphasizing the burden of proof on the insurer regarding policy breaches.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased was involved in a car accident resulting in her death. The insurance company contested liability, arguing the death occurred before the accident and that the driver lacked a valid license.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no error in the Tribunal's conclusion that the death could have resulted from the accident, based on medical evidence and the absence of conclusive proof from the insurance company.
Issues: Whether the deceased died due to the accident and whether the driver held a valid license at the time of the incident.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the possibility of accidental death was sufficient to uphold the Tribunal's award, emphasizing the insurer's burden to prove policy violations.
Result: The appeal was dismissed, affirming the Tribunal's award of compensation.
JUDGMENT :
M.M. SATHAYE, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the Appellant/Insurance Company and learned counsel for Respondent No. 1 and 2/Claimants. As regards Respondent No. 3 (driver), the appeal is already dismissed. None appears for Respondent No. 4 (owner) though served.
2. This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘the said Act’ for short) challenging the Judgment and Award dated 22.02.2021 passed in Motor Accident Claims Petition (MACP) No. 22 of 2017 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Sindhudurg-Oros. By the impugned Judgment and Award, the Appellant/Insurance Company is jointly and severally held liable to pay Rs. 21,60,760/- along with interest 9% p.a. to the claimants from the date of claim.
3. Few facts are as follows. On 16.05.2016 at about 2.15 p.m. one Prabhavati Balkrushna Bhat (deceased) was travelling with her husband and son (claimants) from Manglur to Jaigad-Ratanagiri in Alto Car bearing No. KA-19-MC-0254 (offending vehicle). When the car reached Zarap Muslimwadi area, Respondent No. 3-the Driver, who is brother of Claimant No. 1, lost control of the car which swerved on one side of the road and while trying to control the vehicle, it collided against the divider on the road and turned turtle. In the said accident, deceased suffered internal injuries, who was shifted to hospital, where she was declared dead on examination.
4. Learned counsel for the Appellant/Insurance company submitted that the evidence of its witness No. 1 (Dr. Smita Prashant Pandit), who had performed postmortem on deceased Prabhavati is not considered in proper perspective. He invited this Court’s attention to the deposition of the said Doctor. It is submitted that it is clearly stated by the said Doctor that the postmortem was conducted at 7.00 p.m. on the date of the accident and it was found that rigor mortis had already set in deceased’s whole body and in her opinion, the deceased would have died about 18 to 20 hours before conducting postmortem. It is contended that accident had taken place about 2.15 p.m. and therefore, if time of postmortem is considered (7.00 p.m.), it can be concluded that the deceased had not died in the accident, but prior to that. On this ground the liability is disputed by the Insurance company. Learned counsel for the Appellant also submitted that according to the Appellant/Insurance Company, there was breach of policy terms viz. the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective license at the time of accident. On these grounds, the appeal is pressed.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Respondent/Claimants invited this Court’s attention to the statements of the said Doctor, pointing out that the Doctor has admitted that rigor mortis may develop even within 8 to 12 hours of the death. He pointed out that in examination in chief itself, the said doctor has stated that on going through pathological report, in her opinion, deceased would have died due to lung intraalvelor hemorrhage, which may be natural or accidental and it may be due to blunt trauma to lungs. He pointed out that the said Doctor has also admitted that the bleeding to lungs may happen due to accidental shock. He submitted that if the deposition of the Doctor is considered as whole, it cannot be conclusively said that the death had occurred prior to accident.
6. I have considered the submissions and perused the record. Perusal of the deposition of the said Doctor shows that she has stated that she cannot say that the deceased might have died naturally and even she cannot say that the deceased died accidentally. After going through pathological report, she has opined that deceased would have died due to lung intraalvelor hemorrhage which according to the said Doctor can be both natural or accidental. It is also stated that the said hemorrhage may be due to blunt trauma to the lungs. It is admitted in the cross-examination that rigor mortis may develop even within 8 to 12 hours of the de
