Back
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
BAHARUL ISLAM, J.
Premier Insurance Co.Ltd -Appellant
Versus
Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jorhat and others -Respondent
M. A. (F) No. 56 of 1971
Decided On : 19-01-1973
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - SECTION 96(2) - INSURANCE POLICY - DEFENCES AVAILABLE TO INSURER - LIMITED TO THOSE SPECIFIED IN SECTION 96(2) - APPELLANT CANNOT IMPUGN DECREE ON PLEAS NOT AVAILABLE UNDER SECTION 96(2).
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, an insurance company, challenged the award of compensation by the Claims Tribunal to the respondent, who was injured in an accident involving a vehicle insured by the appellant. The appellant argued that the claimant was contributorily negligent and that the compensation awarded was excessive.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the appellant could not rely on the pleas taken before the Claims Tribunal, as those pleas were not available to it under Section 96(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The court found that the appellant could only raise the defences specified in Section 96(2), which were limited to certain specific grounds.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellant could rely on the pleas taken before the Claims Tribunal, which were not available to it under Section 96(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. 2. Whether the appellant could impugn the decree on the pleas which were not available to it under Section 96(2) of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellant could not rely on the pleas taken before the Claims Tribunal, as those pleas were not available to it under Section 96(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The court found that the appellant could only raise the defences specified in Section 96(2), which were limited to certain specific grounds. The court also held that the appellant could not impugn the decree on the pleas which were not available to it under Section 96(2) of the Act.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with costs.
This appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter called the Act) is directed against the award given by the Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (hereinafter called the Claims Tribunal) at Jorhat in Motor Accidents Claims Case No. 104 of 1968.
2. The claimant, Lakhikanta Rajkonwar, filed an application before the Claims Tribunal claiming compensation for the injury caused to him in an accident in which he was hit by lorry No. ASJ-3083 belonging to the respondent No. 3, Kanta Prasad Singh. The upper end of his right thigh bone was fractured into four pieces. He had to be under treatment in the Christian Mission Hospital at Jorhat. He alleged that at the relevant time he was aged 57 years and was working as a Tea Garden Mohurir in the Hunwal Tea Company Ltd. and was drawing a salary of Rs. 350/- per month. He was expected to be in service for about 7 months from the date of the accident. He incurred expenses of Rupees 2,500/- for his treatment. He claimed Rs. 30,000.00 in total.
3. The appellant, the Premier Insurance Company Ltd., is the insurer and the respondent No. 3, Kanta Prasad Singh, is the insured. The insurer was also made a party to his application. The appellant filed objection. Its material pleas were as follows :
"3. That the claimant sustained the alleged injuries as a result of his own indecision, fault, negligence or carelessness and not due to any fault or lapses on the part of the Vehicle No. ASJ-3083 or its driver.
4. That the objector does not admit that the claimants monthly salary is Rs. 350,00 or thereabout or that he is entitled to get the compensation claimed or any portion of it from this answering objector.
5. That without prejudice to other legal defence it is submitted, that the compensation demanded is highly excessive and without any basis."
The insured, respondent No. 3, also filed an objection. His material pleas also may be quoted :
"2. That the objector does not admit that the claimants monthly salary is Rs. 350,00 or thereabout or that he is entitled to get the compensation claimed or any portion of it from the answering objector.
.... ... ... ....
4. That the claimant sustained the alleged injuries as a result of his own indecision, fault, negligence or carelessness and not due to any fault or lapses on the part of the objectors vehicle or its driver.
6. That the claim is highly inflated and inadmissible in law and under the facts and circumstances of the case."
4. The learned Claims Tribunal framed the following issues :
1. Is there any cause of action for the claim?
2. Is the claim maintainable in law?
3. Whether the accident was due to any fault on the part of the owner of the vehicle or whether it was caused by contributory negligence on the claimants part?
4. What was the monthly salary of the claimant at the time of the accident and the expenses incurred by him for treatment?
5. Whether the claimant is entitled to any compensation? If so, against which of the opposite party and for what amounts?
6. Whether the compensation claimed is excessive?
7. To what relief, if any, are the parties entitled?"
The learned Claims Tribunal, after trial, awarded an aggregate sum of Rupees 12,274.45 as compensation and damage. It was ordered that as the vehicle was insured with the appellant the amount of compensation be recoverable from the insurer. He held that the claimant sustained injury due to the negligence of the driver of the vehicle.
5. Shri J. N. Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, raised a preliminary objection namely, that in view of Section 96 (2) of the Act the pleas taken by the appellant are not available to him and therefore the appeal on the same pleas is not competent.
6. The relevant portion of Section 96 of the Act may be quoted :
"96. Duty of insurers to satisfy judgments against persons insured in respect of third party risks. - (1) if, after a certificate of insurance has been issued under sub-section (4) of Section 95 in favour of the person by w
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
