IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Radhakishan Agrawal, J.
Nemuram Sinha S/o Itwariram Sinha - Appellant
Versus
Kunti Bai W/o Late Kriparam Vishwakarma and ors. – Respondents
MAC No. 517 of 2016
Decided On : 27-09-2024
(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Sections 56 and 192 – Claim for compensation due to death in a motor accident – The appellant contested liability, asserting the vehicle was not in running condition and was being towed at the time of the accident – The Tribunal awarded Rs. 4,73,300/- with interest at 6% per annum, holding the appellant liable for compensation due to lack of valid permit and fitness of the vehicle. (Paras 1, 10, 13)
(B) Insurance Policy – Breach of conditions – The court reiterated that driving without a valid permit and fitness certificate constitutes a breach of insurance policy terms, thus affecting indemnity. (Paras 10, 11)
Facts of the case: The deceased was riding a motorcycle when the appellant's vehicle, driven in a negligent manner, collided with him, resulting in his death. The appellant claimed the vehicle was being towed and not in running condition. (Paras 2, 4)
Findings of Court: The Tribunal correctly held the appellant liable for compensation due to the absence of a valid permit and fitness for the vehicle involved in the accident. (Paras 13)
Issues: The main issues included whether the vehicle was being towed and the implications of the lack of a valid permit and fitness on liability. (Paras 4, 10)
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld that the absence of a valid permit and fitness certificate for the vehicle constitutes a breach of the insurance policy, affirming the Tribunal's findings. (Paras 10, 13)
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Radhakishan Agrawal, J.
1.This appeal is by the driver/owner against the award dated 13.01.2016 passed by Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gariyaband (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 35 of 2014 awarding total compensation of Rs. 4,73,300/- with interest @ 6 % per annum, in favour of the claimants and against the appellant/owner-driver making him liable for payment of compensation.
2.As per claim petition, on 19.12.2013, the deceased Kriparam was going towards Madeli from Jatma while riding his motorcycle in a moderate speed. When he reached near Kamar Tola Basti at that time the appellant while driving the Tata Magic Vehicle bearing registration No. CG 04 T 7749 (herein after referred to as ‘the offending vehicle’), in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the motorcycle of the deceased, due to which, he died on account of injuries sustained by him in the accident. At the time of accident, the offending vehicle was owned and driven by the appellant and was duly insured with respondent No. 11/ Insurer.
3.On account of death of Kriparam, a claim petition was filed seeking compensation of Rs. 94,00,000/- on various heads. The claim petition was resisted by the non-applicants. The parties led evidence before the claims tribunal. The Tribunal, considering the evidence led by the parties passed an award as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment.
4.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that at the time of accident, the offending vehicle was not in running condition and it was being towed to a mechanic with the help of other vehicle, therefore, there is no requirement of permit & fitness and that the offending vehicle was insured with the insurance company on the date of incident, therefore, the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the compensation.
5.Learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 9 while admitting that there is no appeal by the claimants against the impugned award submits that the learned claims Tribunal after considering the evidence and material brought on record, has rightly held the appellant liable to indemnify the compensation and if this Court comes to the conclusion that there was breach of policy condition then in that view of the matter a direction with respect to pay and recover may be issued.
6.On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 11/Insurance company while admitting that no appeal has been filed by the insurance company against the impugned award, submits that the offending vehicle is a passenger carrying vehicle and it was being plied without fitness and permit. She further submits that the offending vehicle was not in a running condition and it was being towed with the help of other vehicle, such fact has not been disclosed by the appellant in the final report submitted by the police against the driver & owner of the offending vehicle. She further submits that the offending vehicle was not having permit and fitness and the driver of the offending vehicle was also not having proper driving license to drive the passenger carrying vehicle, therefore, it was found that there is violation of policy condition. Hence, the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the claim.
She has placed reliance upon the decision of Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Sanat Dhurve and Another v. Lekhram Sahu and Another passed in MAC No. 569 of 2014 vide judgment dated 04.09.2020 to contend that there was no direction of pay and recover issued by the Tribunal.
7.I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.
8.In order to deal with first contention, I shall deal with the statement of NAW-1, Nemuram Sinha (appellant herein) wherein, it has been stated by him that on the date of incident he was driving the offending vehicle and the motorcycle which was being driven by its driver came to wrong side and dashed the offending vehicle and due to such dash Kriparam died. He has further stated that the offending vehicle was damaged and it was being towe
Amrit Paul Singh and Others vs. TATA A.I.G. General Insurance Company Ltd.
AI
Driving a vehicle without a valid permit and fitness certificate constitutes a breach of insurance policy terms, affecting liability for compensation.
The court established that liability for compensation lies primarily with the vehicle owner when an accident occurs outside the permit's authorized area, while allowing the Insurance Company to initi....
An insurance policy breach due to vehicle unfitness does not exempt the insurer from compensating victims; they may recover from the owner after payment, affirming the principle of 'pay and recover'.
Point of law: vehicle which did not have permit to ply on the road which fact cannot but be heid to be in violation of policy conditions. The contention that the owner should not be made liable even ....
The insurance company is exonerated from liability for compensation as the driver lacked a valid driving license, establishing a breach of policy conditions.
Deviation from the permit route does not absolve the insurance company from liability if the vehicle was used for its intended purpose.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.