Back
High Court of Calcutta
M.G. Mukherji, J.
National Insurance Co Ltd – Appellant
Versus
Mahadeb Kar – Respondent
Decided On : Sep 05, 1984
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - SECTION 95 - INSURANCE POLICY - COMPREHENSIVE COVERAGE - EXTENT OF INSURER'S LIABILITY - WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT - LIABILITY OF INSURANCE COMPANY TO INDEMNIFY EMPLOYER - TRANSFER OF VEHICLE WITHOUT CONSENT OF INSURANCE COMPANY - EFFECT.
Fact of the Case:
In a motor accident case, the claimant, a driver, was seriously injured and claimed compensation under section 110a of the Motor Vehicles Act. The insurance company, which had issued a comprehensive policy covering all kinds of risks, denied liability on the ground that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the claimant himself.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the insurance company was liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle against his liability for personal injuries suffered by his employee, the claimant, as a result of the accident. The court found that the insurance policy issued by the company covered all claims for injuries suffered by the paid employees of the insured in the course of their employment, including claims arising out of rash and negligent driving.
Issues: 1. Whether the insurance company was liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle against his liability for personal injuries suffered by his employee, the claimant, as a result of the accident. 2. Whether the insurance policy issued by the company covered all claims for injuries suffered by the paid employees of the insured in the course of their employment, including claims arising out of rash and negligent driving.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the insurance company was liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle against his liability for personal injuries suffered by his employee, the claimant, as a result of the accident. The court found that the insurance policy issued by the company covered all claims for injuries suffered by the paid employees of the insured in the course of their employment, including claims arising out of rash and negligent driving. The court relied on the terms of the insurance policy, which stated that the company would indemnify the insured against his legal liability under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, and subsequent amendments of that Act, prior to the date of this endorsement, the Fatal Accidents Act, 1955, or at Common Law in respect of personal injuries to any paid driver (or cleaner or conductor or person employed in loading and/or unloading) whilst engaged in the service of the insured in such occupation in connection with the vehicle and will in addition be responsible for all costs and expenses incurred with its written consent.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal filed by the insurance company and upheld the decision of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nadia, which had awarded compensation to the claimant.
1. ON 4th July, 1975, while proceeding from Krishnagar bus Station towards Kalna Ghat, Stage carriage WGE 1264 driven by the respondent no. 1, Mahadeb Kar, near the crossing of National Highway No, 34 and krishnagar Road had collided with Stage carriage No. WGE 1195, which was coming from the opposite direction.
2. AS a result of the said accident, mahadeb Kar, the claimant respondent no. 1, was seriously injured and was admitted into hospital, where his right, leg was amputee. He had remained confined to bed in the hospital till 20th of July, 1975 and thereafter he was treated at home On 3rd September, 1975 Mahadeb kar filed before the Motor Vehicles claims Tribunal, Nadia, an application under section 110a of the Motor Vehicles act, claiming Rs. 342240/- as commentation for his said injuries. Originally, the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3, described as partners of the West Bengal Transports, owner of WGE 1195, the driver of the said vehicle and the insurer, National insurance Company Ltd., were made opposite parties to the said application under section 110a of the motor Vehicles Act. The owners of WGE 1264 of which Mahadeb kar was the driver were also made parties.
3. THE opposite parties l (i) to l (iii) in the said Claim Case had alleged be fore the Tribunal below that they were no longer owners of WGE 1195. Since October, 1972 Sm. Ghanubala Sadhmkhan and Arun Kumar Sadhukhan had become the owners of WGE 1195. There fore, the Tribunal had added the said two persons as opposite parties. Gopal krishna Dutta and Nemai Krishna Dutta who were described in the claim petition as owners of WGE 1264, had also disclosed that by reason of transfer made by the firm Nemai Krishna Dutta and brothers, Gopal Krishna Dutta had be come the sole proprietor and owner of wge 1264.
4. WE find no substance in the submission made on behalf of the appellant national Insurance Company Ltd, that the case under section 110a of the Motor vehicles Act filed by the present respond no. 1, was barred by limitation against said Gopal Dutta and also against sm. Ghanubala Sadhukhan and Arun kumar Sadhukhan. The said question of limitation was not raised before the Tribunal below and we also hold that in any case there was sufficient cause for condoning the delay, if any, in joining the transferee owners of the Stage Carriage No. WGE 1195 as opposite parties in the claim case. Only after the previous owners of wge 1195 had disclosed the names of the present owners of the said stage carriage, the applicant before the Tribunal could pray for adding them as opposite parties. Gopal Krishna Dutta originally was impleaded as a partner of the firm owning WGE 1264 and he was subsequently described as the sole owner of the stage carriage and therefore no question of addition of a new party could arise.
5. THE Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nadia allowed the said claim case and directed the opposite party no. 3 (the present appellant) to pay Rs.45100/-as compensation to the petitioner, Mahadeb Kar (the respondent no. 1) herein, The appellant, Insurance Company, being aggrieved thereby has filed the present appeal. .
6. THE appellant, National Insurance. Company Ltd., which was the insurer of both the vehicles, WGE 1195 and wge 1264, has contended before us that in view of the finding by the. Tribunal below that the accident in question was due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle No. WGE 1264 by the claimant respondent no. 1, Mahadeb Kar, neither, the insurer nor the insured had any legal liability to pay any compensation to him. The submission on behalf of the appellant is that under section 95 of the motor Vehicles Act proof of negligence is necessary before the owned the Insurance Company could be hold liable for the payment of compensation in a motor accident claim case. In this connection, reliance has been placed upon the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Minu B. Mehta vs. Bala krishna Ramchandrat Nagpur reported in AIR 1977 S. C. 124
AI
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
