Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
S.B.Sinha, J.
New India Assurance Company Limited
Versus
Gulam Rasool
Miscellaneous Appeal No. 28 of 1985 ;
Decided On : FEBRUARY 04, 1992
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - INSURANCE POLICY - ADMISSIBILITY OF SECONDARY EVIDENCE - LIABILITY OF INSURER - [SECTION 63, 95(2)(B), 96(4)]
Fact of the Case:
The appellant insurance company challenged the award of compensation granted by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal to the respondents for the death of their son in a road accident involving an insured vehicle. The appellant claimed that its liability was limited to Rs. 10,000 as per the insurance policy, while the respondents asserted that the insurer was liable for the entire amount due to the failure to produce the original insurance policy.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant failed to prove the insurance policy in accordance with the law. The secondary evidence adduced by the appellant, a purported certified copy of the insurance policy, was not admissible as the conditions precedent for production of secondary evidence were not satisfied. The court also found that the purported certified copy was not a genuine document.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellant insurance company brought on record the insurance policy in accordance with the law, thereby limiting its liability to Rs. 10,000? 2. Whether the appellant's failure to produce the original insurance policy resulted in unlimited liability for the entire amount of compensation?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the appellant failed to prove the insurance policy in accordance with the law. The secondary evidence adduced by the appellant, a purported certified copy of the insurance policy, was not admissible as the conditions precedent for production of secondary evidence were not satisfied. The court also found that the purported certified copy was not a genuine document. 2. The court held that the appellant's failure to produce the original insurance policy resulted in unlimited liability for the entire amount of compensation. The court relied on the provisions of Section 96(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, which allows the insurer to recover the excess amount paid from the owner of the vehicle.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and held the appellant insurance company liable to pay the entire amount of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, along with costs of Rs. 2,500 to the respondents.
S.B.Sinha, J.
1. This Misc. Appeal arises out of an award dated 25.2.1985 passed by Mr. Chandranan Singh, Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Giridih, in Misc. (Claim) Case No. 4 of 1982, whereby and whereunder the said learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,03,680.00 with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition to the date of the realisation of the awarded amount.
2. In view of the points involved in this application, it is not necessary to notice the facts of the matter in great detail.
3. Suffice it to say that one Abdus Salam, son of the applicant-respondent Nos. 1 and 2, on 12.1.1982 was travelling in a maxi taxi bearing registration No. BHW 1610 belonging to Qumruddin Ansari, respondent No. 3 and which was being driven by Md. Imamuddin, respondent No. 4. The said maxi taxi at about 3 a.m. on the aforementioned date met with an accident while coming from Dhanbad to Chatra and being driven by the respondent No. 4 in great speed rashly and negligently as a result whereof it dashed against a tree near the Bhuiantola Nimighat and turned upside down. The said Abdus Salam received injuries on the head and other parts of the body and ultimately died. According to the applicant-respondent Nos. 1 and 2, the deceased at the relevant time was aged about only 22 years and had a monthly income of Rs. 2,000.00 . It was further stated that the deceased was a good maker of brief cases being of export quality.
4. Admittedly the said vehicle was insured with the appellant, the New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
5. The applicant-respondent Nos. land 2 filed a claim application in terms of Sec. 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 , claiming a sum of Rs. 8,00,000.00 by way of compensation.
6. A written statement was filed by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 before the Tribunal wherein it was stated that the vehicle was insured with the appellant company. It was further alleged that the accident did not occur owing to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the respondent No. 4 but due to mechanical defect of the vehicle.
7. The appellant also filed the written statement alleging therein that there was no cause of action as against it. It further pleaded that its liability was limited.
8. The learned Tribunal in view of the aforementioned pleadings of the parties framed the following issues:
(i) Did the deceased Abdus Salam, son of Gulam Rasool, die in the alleged accident?
(ii) Whether the death of the deceased was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle?
(iii) Are the claimants entitled to compensation under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and if so, what should be the quantum of compensation?
(iv) Who is liable to pay the compensation and to what extent?
9. Before the Tribunal the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 examined four witnesses. The learned Tribunal on the basis of the evidence adduced on behalf of the parties held that accident occurred due to negligent driving on the part of the respondent No. 4. It further came to the conclusion that the annual income of the deceased was Rs. 14,400.00 and for the purpose of computation of the amount of compensation he applied 16 as the multiplying factor. However, 50 per cent of the total income was decided to be deducted towards the personal expenses and on the basis thereof it was held that the total amount of compensation would be Rs. 1,15,200.00 . The learned Tribunal, however, further deducted 10 per cent of the said amount allegedly on account of uncertainty of life and accelerated payment of the said sum at a time and thus awarded a sum of Rs. 1,03,680.00 to respondent Nos. 1 and 2. It was further held that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are entitled to interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum.
10. Before the Tribunal the certificate of insurance was proved which was marked as Exh. B. From perusal of the said certificate of insurance it appeals that it was valid from 10.3.1981 to 9.3.1982.
11. This appea
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
