Back
2024 Supreme(Pat) 822
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA, J.
Miscellaneous Appeal No.407 of 2018
(24.9.2024)
Branch Manager, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. ... Appellant
vs.
Sri Hari Ballabh Singh & Ors. ... Respondents
For the Appellant : Mr. Raj Kumar Singh Vikram.
For Respondent No.1: Mr. Prabhat Ranjan Singh.
For Respondent No.3: M/s Manish Kumar, Sanjay Parasmani.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Sections 1, 139, 147, 149(3), 166(2) & 173 – Claim petition – Jurisdiction – Claimant's son was unmarried and was working as a private driver of a truck and in order to avoid collision with a Tata Sumo, which was coming from the opposite direction, dashed the mountain and caused injuries to which he succumbed and died – Deceased was a valid licensed driver and the said truck was covered with a valid insurance at the time of the accident – Tribunal hold that claimant is entitled to get compensation – There is no dispute as to the occurrence and quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal – Application for compensation arising out of an accident shall be made, at the option of the claimant, either to the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in which the accident occurred or to the Claims Tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the claimant resides or carries on business or within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant resides, and shall be in such form and contain such particulars as may be prescribed – It is relevant to note that the owner of the offending vehicle had obtained the required permissions to take the vehicle outside India and taken insurance cover to Bhutan also by extending geographical area, the insurer cannot escape its liability to pay compensation – The accidental truck was registered in India and both the claimant and the owner of vehicle in question are citizens of India and are thus bound by the provisions of the Act – If the insurer is bound to honour a foreign award, it would be preposterous to contend that the insurer is not liable to honour a judgment and award passed in India, on the ground that accident occurred not in India – Insurer cannot escape its liability on the ground that owner had not paid an additional premium – There is no evidence on behalf of Insurance Company to show that there was any violation of the rules or terms of policy – On perusal of Insurance Policy, it is explicit that geographical area includes India and extended geographical area i.e., Bhutan, Nepal and Bangladesh – When the owner of a vehicle pay additional premium and same is accepted by the Insurance Company, liability of the Insurance Company gets extended under the Act – Appeal is devoid of merit – Nominal cost of Rs.10,000/- to be paid by the Insurance Company – Appeal dismissed. (Paras 14, 16, 17 & 19 to 21)
Sunil Dutta Mishra, J.—Heard learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company and learned counsel for the claimant/respondent no.1 as well as the owner of the vehicle/respondent no.3.
2. This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) by New India Assurance Co. Ltd. through its Branch Manager (hereinafter referred to as ‘Insurance Company’) against the judgment dated 06.11.2017 and award dated 02.02.2018 passed by learned Additional District Judge-II-cum M.A.C.T., Saharsa (hereinafter referred to as ‘Learned Tribunal’) in M.V. Case No.14 of 2007 whereby the learned Tribunal was pleased to direct the appellant/Insurance Company to pay Rs.5,20,000/- with interest @ 6 % per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of its realization within a month.
3. The facts, in brief, are that the claimant’s son, Santosh Kumar Singh (deceased) aged about 29 years was unmarried and was working as a private driver of a truck bearing its Registration No. NL01-A 7299. On 27.07.2007 at about 05:30 P.M near Phuntsoling, Bhutan, in order to avoid collision with a Tata Sumo, which was coming from the opposite direction, dashed the mountain and caused injuries to which he succumbed and died. In this regard, a case was lodged on 27.07.2007 under Crime Information Report No. 95 of 2007 for Motor Vehicle Accident. Post-mortem examination of the body was not conducted as there was no arrangement for it. The deceased was a valid licensed driver and the said truck was covered with a valid insurance at the time of the accident. The deceased truck driver was working at a monthly salary of Rs. 5,000/- at the time of the accident. As such the claimant/father of deceased filed the claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 18,60,000/-.
4. Appellant/O.P. No. 1 is the insurance company, O.P. No. 2 is the operator-possessor/custodian of the accidental truck under whom the deceased was working and O.P. No.3 is the registered owner of the accidental truck. O.P Nos. 1 and 3 have appeared on notice and submitted their written statement. O.P. No. 1 has admitted in its written statement that the alleged accident is true and deceased died due to accident while driving the accidental truck. It was further admitted that vehicle was covered by valid insurance at the time of accident. Similarly, O.P. No. 3 has admitted in his written statement that the accidental truck involved in the accident was under insurance issued by OP. No. 1 New India Assurance Company Limited at the time of accident.
5. O.P. No. 2 did not appear in spite of service of notice before the learned Tribunal and the learned Tribunal proceeded ex-parte. He did not appear in this appeal also.
6. The claimant in support of his claim filed total five oral and seven documentary evidence (Exhibit 1 to 7) including copy of crime information report no. 95 of 2007, receipt application dated 28.07.2007 regarding the information of removal of the dead body after accident, traffic branch Phuentsholing, Toyal Bhutan Police, issued a certificate no. 107 dated 28.07.2007 containing brief description of accident, certificate dated 25.02.2008 by Dr. Tashi Gyeltshen, Medical Superintendent declaring death, certificate of handing over the body of deceased to his brother and operator/possessor/custodian of vehicle Dinesh Goyal, a death certificate by General Hospital, Phuentsholing, note on date 04.03.2009 by Medical Superintendent, General Hospital that post-mortem was not conducted due to lack of competent expert and driving licence of deceased. Furthermore, oral evidence presented on behalf of CW-1 Hari Ballabh Singh (father of the deceased), CW-2 Shambhu Prasad Singh (elder brother of deceased), CW-3 Durga Prasad Singh, CW-4 Lal Bahadur Singh and CW-5 Saroj Kumar Singh. However, neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the opposite parties including the appellant/Insurance Company to controvert the claim of cla
