Back
2016 Supreme(Chh) 208
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Deepak Gupta, J.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. - Petitioner
Versus
Pusau Ram Kurre, S/o Bisnath Kurre - Respondents
Civil Revision No.98 of 2005, Miscellaneous Appeal No.298 of 2006,
Miscellaneous Appeal No.931 of 2005
Decided On : 02-09-2016
For the Petitioner:Shri Dashrath Gupta, Advocate, Shri P.P. Sahu and Shri Aditya Kumar, Advocates
For the Respondent:Shri Vasant Zokarkar, Advocate, Shri D.N. Prajapati, Advocate
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 166 - Insurance Act, 1938 - Section 64-VB - Motor Accidents Claims – Dishonor of cheque - Sustained injuries - Undisputed facts are that an accident took place involving a truck bearing registration - Allegation is that was riding his bicycle and deceased was sitting on same - They were travelling from Village to Village - Near Village offending truck hit bicycle - Both and sustained injuries and died as a result of injuries sustained by her - Filed a claim petition being Claim Case for compensation - Legal heirs of deceased her husband and her three minor children also filed a claim petition being Claim Case for compensation - Both claim cases have been decided by a common award by Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – Held, In judgments cited hereinabove it has been held that if Insurance Company wants to avoid its liability it must send intimation to owner and the concerned RTO - Reason for sending intimation to concerned RTO is that if concerned RTO is informed that a vehicle is no longer insured said RTO can take steps to ensure that vehicle is not plied in public place - Court also of considered view that to avoid third party liability as held in case supra and case Insurance Company should not only cancel policy of insurance but also send intimation not only to insured but also to concerned RTO - In present case since concerned RTO had not been intimated Insurance Company cannot be absolved of liability to make payment of compensation - At same time since Insurance Company had intimated insured about cancellation of policy of insurance and the insured took no step to pay premium Insurance Company should be given right to recover amount paid by it as compensation from the insured and for recovery of same it will not have to file a separate proceeding but can take out certificate proceeding within meaning of Section 174 of the Act - As far as Civil Revision filed by Insurance Company against and others is concerned since amount involved is trivial revision of Insurance Company is dismissed without making it a precedent for other cases – Appeal allowed c
1. The instant three cases are being disposed of by the following common judgment since the issues involved therein are common.
2. The undisputed facts are that on 30.5.2002, an accident took place involving a truck bearing registration No.BR 20 E 3521. The allegation is that Pusau Ram (injured) was riding his bicycle and Sitabai (deceased) was sitting on the same. They were travelling from Village Kodebod to Village Marod. At about 12:00 noon, near Village Marod, the offending truck hit the bicycle. Both Pusau Ram and Sitabai sustained injuries and Sitabai died as a result of the injuries sustained by her.
3. Pusau Ram filed a claim petition, being Claim Case No.36 of 2004 for compensation. The legal heirs of deceased Sitabai, i.e., her husband Daulal and her three minor children Kumari Manisha, aged about 8 years, Master Indra Kumar, aged about 6 years and Master Manish Kumar, aged about 3 years also filed a claim petition, being Claim Case No.37 of 2004 for compensation. Both the claim cases have been decided by a common award dated 26.4.2005 by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dhamtari.
4. Pusau Ram, in his Claim Case No.36 of 2004, has been awarded compensation of Rs.4,500/- by the Claims Tribunal. Against this award, a revision, being Civil Revision No.98 of 2005 has been filed by the National Insurance Company Limited against Pusau Ram and others.
5. In Claim Case No.37 of 2004 filed by Daulal and three others, the Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.1,41,800/-. Being aggrieved by this award, the National Insurance Company Limited has filed an appeal, being Miscellaneous Appeal No.931 of 2005 against Claimants Daulal and others. This award has also been challenged by Claimants Daulal and others seeking enhancement of compensation by preferring an appeal, being Miscellaneous Appeal No.298 of 2006 against driver, owner and insurer of the offending truck.
6. On behalf of the Insurance Company, it is urged that the truck in question was insured for the period from 17.4.2002 to 16.4.2003. The premium for the insurance of the truck was paid by a cheque. However, on presentation of the cheque, the same was dishonoured vide intimation received on 24.4.2002. Thereafter, the Insurance Company cancelled the policy of insurance and sent intimation thereof to the insured on 15.5.2002. The accident in question took place on 30.5.2002.
7. Learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submits that since the Insurance Company had cancelled the policy of insurance and had intimated the same to the insured, it cannot be held liable to pay the compensation.
8. As far as Claimants Daulal and others, i.e., the legal heirs of deceased Sitabai are concerned, their case is that deceased Sitabai was working as an Anganbadi Worker and she was also doing household works and, therefore, the amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is very much on lower side.
9. Firstly, I shall take-up the appeal filed by Claimants Daulal and others, i.e., Miscellaneous Appeal No.298 of 2006 for determination of just compensation.
10. Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (henceforth 'the Act') mandates that the Claims Tribunal should award just compensation. What is just compensation has been subject-matter of large number of cases and it is not necessary to multiply all the authorities. As far as the facts of Miscellaneous Appeal No.298 of 2006 are concerned, deceased Sitabai was working as an Anganbadi Worker and was earning Rs.950/- per month and she was also doing household works.
11. In Arun Kumar Agrawal v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., AIR 2010 SC 3426, the Apex Court, while dealing with the issue as to how the income of a housewife has to be assessed, approved the observation of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the following terms:
“27. In A. Rajam v. M. Manikya Reddy, 1989 ACJ 542 (Andhra Pradesh HC), M. Jagannadha Rao, J. (as he then was) advocated giving of a wider meaning to the Word 'services' in cases
