IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH, AIZAWL BENCH
MARLI VANKUNG, J.
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Smt. Lalseli, W/o. Lalhuliana (L) & Ors. - Respondents
MAC. App. No. 34 of 2017 with MAC. App. No. 35 of 2017
Decided On : 28-02-2022
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 173, 163, 163A – Compensation –Payment of compensation in case of hit and run motor accident – Whether Insurance Policy for period 2009 to 2010 exhibited as Ext C-17 covering date of accident is fake or not – Whether appellant Insurance Company was rightly held vicariously liable for acts of its agent i.e TATA MOTORS Ltd by the learned tribunal – Whether conventional head, which are not reflected in 2ndSchedule of M.V Act,1988, can be awarded to claimant, who has made claim under section 163-A of the Act– Matter is yet again remanded back to the learned Tribunal for determining whether the owner of the vehicle or whether the TATA Insurance Company Ltd. is liable to pay the compensation to the claimant who has been made to wait and suffer unduly for the wrong of others. (Para 21)
Finding of the court:
Court thus do not find it necessary to discuss matter any further since this issue is a covered therein –However even in event of Appellant Insurance Company being exonerated, claimants are required to be compensated for loss suffered due to accident of vehicle – Learned Tribunal shall give an opportunity to both, owner of vehicle and the TATA MOTORS Ltd. for adducing additional evidence in support of their respective contentions of disclaiming responsibility for fake insurance policies duly exhibited before Tribunal.
Results: Appeal is stands allowed and disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. Lalfakawma learned counsel for the appellant in MAC.APP No.34 of 2017 and MAC.APP No.35 of 2017 and also heard Mr. Lalchhanliana Khiangte, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1/claimant, Mr. L.H. Lianhrima, learned Sr. Counsel for the respondent No.2 and Mr. F. Lalengliana, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 who are all appearing for both the respective respondents in both the cases MAC.APP No.34 of 2017 and MAC.APP No.35 of 2017.
2. The 2(two) appeals are disposed by a Common Order.
3. This is an appeal filed by the appellant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the Judgment and Award dated 28.06.2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Aizawl, in MACT Case No. 19 of 2012 whereby the instant appellant has been directed to pay the respondent No. 1/Claimant compensation for an amount of Rs.5,66,000/-(Rupees Five Lakhs Sixty Six Thousand only) with an interest calculated @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the MACT No.19 of 2012 i.e. 29.03.2012 till realization in full.
4. The brief facts leading to filing of this appeal is that 0n 13.10.2009 morning, one vehicle (Tata Sumo) bearing registration number MZ-01-C-8259 belonging to the respondent No. 2 while proceeding from Aizawl to Phuldungsei met with an accident near Dapchhuah Village, Mamit District, Mizoram, by rolling down off the cliffs. That due to the said accident, the driver of the accident vehicle Mr. Vanlalhlua, S/o Zohmingthanga, one Mr. Lalhuliana, H/o of Lalseli (Claimant) and one Mr. Lalrinngheta, S/o Lalrinsiama died on the spot.
5. The respondent No. 1/Claimant then approached the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aizawl on 29.03.2012 under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. The Ld. Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Aizawl passed its Judgment and Award dated 10.12.2014 whereby the Appellant/Opposite Party No. 2 was directed to pay compensation to the respondent No. 1/Claimant for an amount of Rs.3,20,000/-(Rupees Three Lakhs Twenty Thousand only) with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing i.e. 29.3.2012 within one month from the date of the Judgment by deciding the issues (i) Whether the claim application is maintainable in its present form and style (ii) whether the claimant is entitled to get compensation and if so, who is liable and to what extend, in favour of the claimant.
6. Being aggrieved by the said Judgment and Award dated 10.12.2014 passed by the Ld. Member-cum-Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Aizawl in MACT Case No. 19 of 2012, the Appellant had preferred MAC Appeal which was registered as MAC Appeal No. 7 of 2015. That this Court passed a common Judgment and Order dated 09.02.2016 in MAC Appeal No. 6 of 2015 and MAC Appeal No. 7 of 2015 wherein the case was remanded back to the Ld. Member-cum-Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Aizawl with a direction to adjudicate on the two (2) additional issues :
(ii) whether the OP No.2 would be liable under the same purported policy of insurance to provide coverage as indicated in it”
framed by the learned tribunal in its Order dated 14.08.2013 and also to adduce additional evidences, if required. Thereafter the Ld. Tribunal on 29.05.2017 after hearing the parties passed its Judgment and Award dated 28.06.2017 whereby the learned tribunal held that the Insurance policy Exhibited as Ext C-17 is a valid Insurance policy covering the date of the accident i.e. 13.10.2009 and also held that since the Insurance Policy was issued by the corporate agent i.e., TATA Motors Ltd., the Insurance Company is vicariously liable for the acts of its agent and instant Appellant was held liable for payment of Rs.5,66,000/-(Rupees Five Lakhs Sixty Six Thousand only) with interest @ 9% per
Sitaram Motilal Kala vs. Santanu Prasad Jaishankar Bhatt
Pushpabai Purshottam Udeshi and others vs. M/s. Ranjit Ginning & Pressing Co. (P) Ltd
Denying compensation towards future prospects seems unjustified and accordingly the Apex Court had awarded compensation for future prospects on a claim made under Section 163-A of the M.V Act.
Fraud in an insurance contract negates any liability of the insurer for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.
Point of law: It appears that when a policy of insurance has been issued by authorised insurer, on receipt of a cheque towards the payment of a premium and such a cheque is returned dishonoured, the ....
"when fraud, misrepresentation or undue influence is alleged by a party in a suit, normally, the burden is on him to prove such fraud, undue influence or misrepresentation".
The court affirmed that insurance companies must raise liability defenses at trial; failure to do so restricts their arguments on appeal, particularly regarding employment coverage and income assessm....
The insurer is liable for compensation regardless of alleged fraud concerning the insurance policy, which must be proven by the insurer.
A valid light motor vehicle license includes transport vehicles, and insurers cannot deny liability without proving negligence by the vehicle owner.
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.