Back
2011 Supreme(Pat) 176
PATNA HIGH COURT
Gopal Prasad, J.
The National Insurance Company Ltd. through Its Branch Manager, Chapra, sudarshan Building, Ground Floor, p.O.-chapra, District-saran, Chapra, represented Through Its Competent authority, Sone Bhawan, Birchand patel Path, Patna-1 (In 295) meena Devi Wife Of Late Dharmendra kumar Singh & Ors. (In 272)
Versus
Meena Devi, Dharmendra Kumar Singh
M.A. No. 295 of 2002 272 of 2002
Decided On : JANUARY 27, 2011
The liability of the insurance company and the entitlement to compensation for a pillion rider under a comprehensive insurance policy.
Headnote:
Insurance - Motor Accident Claims - Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 - Section 147 - Comprehensive Policy - Pillion Rider - [FACT OF THE CASE] The deceased was a pillion rider on a motorcycle involved in an accident. The insurance company challenged the claim on the grounds that the deceased was not covered under the insurance policy and that the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal was excessive. [FINDING OF THE COURT] The court held that the accident was caused by rash and negligent driving, and the insurer was liable to pay compensation to the claimant. The court also found that the quantum of compensation needed to be recalculated. [ISSUES] Whether the claimant is entitled to claim from the Insurance Company as a pillion rider, whether the quantum of compensation is liable to be enhanced, whether the multiplier is properly assessed, and whether the Insurance Company can challenge the quantum without permission of the Tribunal. [RATIO DECIDENDI] The court considered the terms of the insurance policy, the Motor Vehicle Act, and relevant case law to determine the liability of the insurance company and the calculation of compensation. [FINAL DECISION] The court dismissed the Insurance Company's appeal and allowed the claimant's appeal to the extent mentioned above.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The two Miscellaneous Appeals are heard together and being disposed off by the common order as both arises out of the same order dated 8.4.2002, passed by Sri Amresh Kumar Lal, 6th Additional District Judge-cum-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chapra, in M.A.C.T. Case no. 14 of 2001, by which he has granted compensation to the claimant to the tune of Rs. 6,60,000/- (six lakh sixty thousand) with an interest of 9% per annum on amount after deducting Rs. 50,000/-, which has already been paid as interim compensation. Both the learned counsel, for the claimant and the insurer Insurance Company, has preferred separate appeal against the impugned order dated 8.4.2002.
2. The Insurance Company has filed the Miscellaneous Appeal No. 295 of 2002 asserting that the deceased was a pillion rider and hence not covered under the insurance poiicy and further challenged that the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal is excessive.
3. The claimant has, however, filed appeal bearing Miscellaneous Appeal No.272/2002 challenging the impugned order on the ground that quantum fixed by Tribunal is excessive low and unjust particularly the multiple in fixing the quantum was excessive low.
4. On perusal of record it appears, while deceased Dharmendra Kumar Singh was coming to Chapra from Patna by Suzuki Motorcycle, bearing registration no. BR 04 A 6345, being driven by the owner of the said motorcycle, Mr. Manoranjan Prasad Gupta, and Dharmendra Kumar Singh was pillion rider, when the motorcycle met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving. As a result of which, Dharmendra Kumar Singh died at the spot, leaving behind his widow and a minor son and a daughter as well as his mother and father. Dharmendra Kumar Singh had got a shop electronic centre by which, he was earning of Rs. 6,000/- per month and asserted that by the death of Dharmendara Kumar Gupta (sicSingh ?) dependents lost the bread earner.
5. However, the claim was resisted by the Insurance Company and it has been asserted that deceased was coming from Patna and a part of road bridge was being constructed, and half part was left for travelling and the driver of the motor-cycle, without observing the construction of bridge drove straightway in open portion meant for construction of the bridge and the vehicle fell in the river and the deceased owher-cum-driver died by drowning and the entire occurrence took place due to rash and negligent act of the driver of the vehicle as the driver did not take care and caution to avert occurrence. It has further been asserted in para 7 of the written statement that this petition is hit by Section 2 of the Motorcycle/Scooter insurance "B" Policy Ciause 2 which reads death or bodily injury to any person conveyed in or on the motorcycle provided such person is not carried for hire or reward and further it has been asserted in the written statement all the documents have not been filed like the insurance policy and driving licence and the opposite party denies that the driver of the vehicle had valid licence and the owner be directed to file driving licence. The Insurance Company and other party prayed for seeking protection, under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, and crave leave to refer any relevant policy of insurance.
6. At the time of hearing before the Tribunal, on pleading of the parties four issues were framed, (i) Whether the claim petition as framed is maintainable, (ii) Whether the death of Dharmendra Kumar Singh was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle, (iii) Whether the vehicle was insured by Opposite Party No. 1 the National Insurance Company and (iv) Whether the applicant are entitled to receive compensation.
7. The claimant adduced, both oral and documentary evidences, the oral evidence adduced on behalf of the claimant is AW-1, Arvind Kumar, AW-2, Amar Kumar Gupta, AW-3, Vijendra Kumar Singh, AW-4, Prem Kumar and AW-5 Meena Devi, the documentary ev
