Back
2024 Supreme(Gau) 873
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd – Appellant
Versus
Sri Amal Borah And Ors – Respondent
MACApp./856/2018, MAC App./860/2018
Decided on : 25-06-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Ms. R.D. Mozumdar (MAC App./856/2018), Shri D. Borah (MAC App./860/2018)
For the Respondent: Shri D. Borah (MAC App./856/2018), Shri R.C. Paul (MAC App./860/2018)
IMPORTANT POINT
A claimant in an insurance context must disclose all relevant facts, and claims for damages already compensated by another insurer are not maintainable, upholding the principle of utmost good faith in insurance contracts.
Headnote:
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS - MOTOR ACCIDENT COMPENSATION - MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, 1988; INSURANCE ACT, 1938 - The court discussed the principles of utmost good faith in insurance claims, emphasizing that claimants must disclose all relevant facts. The court highlighted that the claimant had already received compensation from his own insurance for the vehicle damage, rendering the claim against the truck's insurance company duplicative and thus not maintainable. The court's decision was influenced by the need to prevent unjust enrichment and uphold the integrity of the insurance contract.
Fact of the Case:
The claimant's vehicle was damaged in an accident caused by a truck's negligent driving. The claimant sought Rs. 12,00,000 for damages, despite having already received compensation from his own insurance for the vehicle's damage.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the claimant had not disclosed the compensation received from his own insurance company, which made the claim against the truck's insurance company duplicative and not maintainable. The tribunal's award was based on conjecture without substantial evidence.
Issues: Whether the claimant was entitled to compensation from the truck's insurance company after already receiving compensation from his own insurance for the same damage.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a claimant must disclose all relevant facts in an insurance claim, and a claim for damages already compensated by another insurer is not maintainable. The principle of utmost good faith in insurance contracts requires full disclosure to prevent unjust enrichment.
Final Decision: The court set aside the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, allowing the insurance company's appeal and dismissing the claimant's appeal for enhancement of the award.
JUDGMENT :
Both these two appeals being connected and arising out of a common judgment and award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kamrup are analogously heard and disposed of by this common judgment and order.
2. While MAC App No. 856/2018 is preferred by the Insurance Company, MAC App No. 860/2018 is preferred by the claimant.
3. The impugned judgment and order dated 11.06.2018 is passed by the MACT No. 1, Kamrup in MAC Case No.524/2016. By the aforesaid judgment, an amount of Rs.4,00,000/-with interest @ 7% pa has been awarded. While the Insurance Company has challenged the Award in the appeal preferred by it, the claimant has prayed for enhancement of the amount in the appeal preferred by him.
4. Before coming to the issues which have arisen for determination, it would be convenient if the basic facts of the case are narrated in brief.
5. The projected case of the claimant is that on 20.12.2014, his son was driving a vehicle (Ford Eco Sport), bearing Reg. No. AS-01/BF-8788 and near Palashbari, a truck carrying sand (Tata), bearing no. AS-21/C/0779 had hit the claimant’s vehicle on the front left side. It is contented that the claimant’s vehicle was completely damaged in the accident which was because of the rash and negligent driving of the truck. The amount claimed was of Rs.12,00,000/-in respect of the damage of the vehicle.
6. The claimant had arrayed the Insurance Company of the truck as opposite party no. 1 and the Owner and Driver of the truck as opposite party nos. 2 and 3, respectively in the claim petition. The Insurance Company had contested the claim by filing written statement. A joint written statement was also filed by the opposite party nos. 1 and 2. The claim of the claimant was disputed and denied by the opposite parties.
7. The claimant had adduced evidence by 3 nos. of CWs. The claimant, as CW-1, had deposed that his vehicle was completely damaged which was assessed by the Motor Vehicle Inspector (MVI) and the estimate given by the workshop was Rs. 8,75,000/-(approx.). It was also deposed that the vehicle was sold as scrap for Rs. 20,000/-. It, however, reveals from the cross-examination that the vehicle of the claimant was insured with the TATA AIG Insurance Company and the claimant had received the own damage compensation from the said Insurance Company. It has also been admitted that the claim was lodged for property damage only and the claim petition was filed after disposing the scrap of the vehicle. The CW-2 is the son of the claimant. In his cross-examination, he had stated that no separate case was filed by him claiming compensation for any injuries suffered by him and that one of the occupants, namely, Mir Hussain had, however, filed a case for compensation for injuries sustained by him. The CW-3 was one Mohammad Ali, who supported the claimant’s case.
8. The leaned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had framed two issues for determination, namely, the issue of complete damage of the claimant’s vehicle due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle and whether the claimant is entitled to any compensation. After consideration, the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal vide the impugned judgment and order dated 11.06.2018 had passed the Award as mentioned above, which is the subject matter of challenge in these two appeals.
9. I have Ms. R.D. Mozumdar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in MAC App./856/2018 and Shri D. Borah, learned counsel appearing for the respondent in MAC App./856/2018 and for the appellant in MAC App./860/2018. I have also heard Shri R.C. Paul, learned counsel appearing for the respondent in MAC App./860/2018.
10. Ms. Mozumdar, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company has submitted that admittedly, the claim was only for the damage sustained by the claimant’s vehicle in the accident. She submits that without making a candid disclosure of all the relevant facts, the claim was made whereby only the Insurance Company of the truck in question
