Back
2008 Supreme(Gau) 723
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Brojendra Prasad Katakey, J.
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. – Appellants
Vs.
Shri Bindu Bhushan Sen and Ors. – Respondent
M.A.C. Appeal No. 201 of 2006
Decided On: 24.09.2008
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: S.S. Sharma, K.K. Bhatra, R.K. Bhatra and U. Sarma, Advs.
For Respondents/Defendant: S.C. Biswas, P. Biswas, S. Das, H. Chanda, R. Sharma, S.S. Barooahand R. Parasar, Advs.
The main legal point established is that the liability of the Insurance Company under the policy of insurance is determined by the terms and conditions of the policy, the premium paid, and the extent of coverage for personal accident benefit.
Headnote:
Insurance Company - Motor Accident Claims - Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, Section 166 - [Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988] - The court discussed the liability of the Insurance Company under the policy of insurance, the limits of liability, and the premium paid for personal accident benefit. The court referred to the provisions of the Act and relevant case laws to determine the extent of the Insurance Company's liability.
Fact of the Case:
The claimant sustained 80% permanent disability in a motor accident and claimed compensation. The Insurance Company challenged the direction to satisfy the award, arguing that its liability was limited under the insurance contract.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the claimant suffered 80% disability, lost his job, and awarded compensation. The court also found that the Insurance Company's liability was not limited to Rs.1,00,000 as contended.
Issues: The issues included the extent of the Insurance Company's liability under the insurance contract and the interpretation of the policy terms and conditions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the liability of the Insurance Company was not limited to Rs.1,00,000 as the claimant had paid extra premium for personal accident benefit, and the terms and conditions of the policy were not produced to limit the liability.
Final Decision: The appeal filed by the Insurance Company was dismissed for being devoid of merits.
B.P. Katakey, J.
1. This appeal by the Insurance Company is directed against the award dated 24.4.2006 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sonitpur, Tezpur in MAC Case No. 286 of 2003 awarding a sum of Rs.18,16,633/- as compensation to the claimant for sustaining 80% permanent disability along with interest @ 8% per annum with effect from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of payment and directing the Insurance Company to satisfy the award in view of the insurance coverage issued by it.
2. The Respondent No. 1 herein filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter for short 'the Act') before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sonitpur claiming compensation for the injury sustained by him in a motor accident occurred on 1.9.2002 at about 5.45 a.m. alleging that on that date when was riding on the vehicle (scooter) bearing Registration No. AS-12/B/5266 (Scooter) as pillion rider driven by the owner of the scooter namely the Respondent No. 2, had met with an accident as the owner/driver of the scooter lost his control and both of them and fallen down as a result of which the Respondent claimant sustained grievous injuries. It has further been contended in the said application that he was immediately taken to Kanaklata Civil Hospital, Tezpur, but due to seriousness of the injury was shifted to Down Town Hospital, Guwahati and again admitted to GNRC Hospital, Guwahati on 2.9.2002 where he was treated for 13 days and as per doctor's advise he was then taken to Patna on 12.11.2002 where he was treated till 3.7.2003. As he was not recovered from the injuries sustained, he was again taken to Apollo Hospital, New Delhi where was treated till 12.9.2003. The claimant in the claim petition has further contended that he was a Bank employee and due to the accident he suffered from paralysis with 80% disablement and was the only earning member of the family consisting of five members including his wife and three sons and because of the injury he was unable to continue in employment requiring him to remain on leave without pay and to take premature retirement. The Respondent-claimant therefore claimed compensation of Rs.55,50,000/-. The said application was registered as MAC Case No. 286/2003.
3. The owner of the scooter as well as the Insurance Company contested the claim of the Respondent-claimant by filing written statements. The owner-cum-driver of the vehicle in his written statement denying the allegation made by the claimant has pleaded that the claim application is not maintainable, it is bad for proper notice and that the claimant has availed medical benefits and the bank paid him Rs.3,00,000/-. The owner-cum-driver also denied the allegation of rash and negligent driving stating that the accident took place due to bad road condition. It has, however, been stated in the written statement that the vehicle has been duly and comprehensively insured with the Appellant Insurance Company at the relevant point of time and, therefore, in the event any compensation is awarded, the same is to be paid by the Insurance Company. The present Appellant has also filed written statement denying the claim as well as the allegations made by the claimant in the claim application and stating, inter alia, that unless the claimant produce and prove the evidences relating to the accident and also the nature of injury suffered, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation to the claimant. The Insurance Company has also pleaded that the accident took place due to the fault of the claimant himself, and that the driver of the vehicle had no valid driving license and, therefore, the insurer is not liable to pay compensation. The Insurance Company in the written statement also contended that it is liable to pay compensation as per terms and conditions of the policy of insurance.
4. The Respondent-claimant in support of the claim examined himself and another witness nam
