Back
2012 Supreme(Raj) 317
(Rajasthan High Court)
Jaipur Bench
Bajaj Allianz Gen. Insu. vs. Parmeshwari Devi (Bhagwati, J.)
MAHESH BHAGWATI, J.
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Versus
Smt. Parmeshwari Devi & Ors.
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.5263 of 2011
With
S.B. Civil Misc. Stay Appl. No.3390 of 2011, decided on 12.03.2012
Akshat Choudhary on behalf of Virendra Agarwal, for Appellant
Headnote:Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Sec. 140, 149 & 168 — Death of person — Tribunal passed interim compensation of Rs. 50,000/- in favour of claimants and against appellant as also non-claimants No. 4 to 6 — Liability of insurance company — Challenged to — Contention that owner of vehicle breached the condition of policy — Offending pick-up was insured as goods vehicle but at the time of accident, it was carrying passengers for hire or reward — Held — If the owner is liable and the vehicle entailed is insured with insurance company, then the insurer is duty bound to pay the interim compensation amount assessed under no fault liability — Because the question of wrongful act, negligence or default of owner of vehicle is not to be considered at the time of deciding claim under Sec. 140 of the Act — If the offending vehicle is insured, the liability shall extend to insurance company also for the reason that conditions of insurance policy are not permissible to override the statute — Appeal is baseless. (Paras 11 to 14)
Appeal dismissed.
eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1988] /kkjk 140] 149 ,oa 168 & O;fDr dh e`R;q & vf/kdj.k us 50]000@- #i;s dk varfje izfrdj nkosnkjksa ds i{k esa ,oa vihykFkhZ ds lkFk vnkosnkjx.k la[;k 4 ls 6 ds fo:) Hkh ikfjr fd;k & chek daiuh ds nkf;Ro dks pqukSrh & rdZ fd okgu dk ekfyd ikWfylh ds 'krksZ dks Hkax fd;k & fyIr fid-vi eky okgu ds :i esa chfer Fkk ysfdu nq?kZVuk ds le; og fdjk;k ;k ikfjJfed gsrq ;kf=;ks dks ogu dj jgk Fkk & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & ;fn ekfyd nk;h gS vkSj fyIr okgu chek daiuh ls chfer gS rks chekdrkZ =qfV jfgr nkf;Ro ds vUrxZr fu/kkZfjr varfje izfrdj dh jkf'k Hkqxrku djus ds drZO; ls vkc) gS & D;ksafd lanks"k dk;Z] mis{kk ;k okgu ds ekfyd dk O;frØe dk iz'u vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 140 ds vUrxZr nkok fuf.kZr djus ds le; fopkj ugha fd;k tkrk gS & ;fn fyIr okgu chfer gS] nkf;Ro chek daiuh rd bl dkj.k ls Hkh foLrkj djsxk fd chek ikWfylh dh 'krsZ dkuwu ds v/;kjksgh vuqKs; ugha gS & vihy vk/kkjghu gSA
vihy vLohdkj dhA ¼in la[;k 11 ls 14½
2. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and carefully perused the relevant material on record, it is revealed that on 26th April, 2009, the members of one marriage party were going by a Pick-up bearing registration No.RJ-18-G-2194 from Siriyasar Khurd. The Pick-up was being driven by its driver Rajendra Singh. It is alleged that the driver, Rajendra Singh drove the Pick-up, rashly and negligently and he took a sharp turn near the School of village Siriyasar at a fast speed, as a result of which the vehicle capsized and the passengers sitting inside sustained simple and grievous injuries. It is also alleged that one Jitendra @ Jeetu died on the spot and another injured Mukesh expired on the way to S.M.S. Hospital on 27.4.th April, 2009.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant canvassed that the Insurance Co. was not liable to pay the amount of interim compensation to the claimants for the simple reason that the pick-up being goods vehicle was not insured for carrying passengers for hire or reward. Since the owner of the vehicle has committed a breach of the conditions of Insurance policy, the Tribunal ought not to have fastened the liability on the Insurance Co. even to pay the amount of 'interim compensation'. Hence, the order with regard to the payment of 'interim compensation' is arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of law and thus, the same deserves to be set aside.
4. He has cited two judgments of Apex Court rendered in the cases of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Rattani & Ors. (Civil Appeal No.7399/2008 = 2009(1) CCR 192 (SC)) and United India Insurance Co. vs. Serjerao & Ors. (Appeal (Civil) 5201/2007).
5. Having reflected over the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and carefully scanned the impugned 'interim award' as also the judgments cited by him, it is made tangible at the very outset that both the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the appellant do not hold good in the instant appeal for the simple reason that in the case of United India Insurance Co. (Supra), no notice was given to the Insurance Company before passing the order of 'Interim Compensation' and in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd.(Supra), the appeal was preferred against the final award passed by the Tribunal whereas in the case on hand, the notice was given by the Tribunal to the appellant and the appellant had very much put its defence before the Tribunal.
6. Now, adverting to the facts of the instant case, I, before discussing the relevant factors, feel necessary to reproduce Section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act for proper appreciation of the provisions of law, which reads thus:
140. Liability to pay compensation in certain cases on the principle of no fault.
(1) Where death or permanent disablement of any person has resulted from an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle or motor vehicles, the owner of the vehicle shall, or, as the case may be, the owners of the vehicles shall, jointly and severally, be liable to pay compensation in respect of such death or disablement in accordance with the provisions of this section.
(2) The amount of compensation which shall be payable under sub-section (1) in respect of the death of any person shall be a fixed sum of 1[fifty thousand rupees] and the amount of compensation payable under that sub-section in respect of the permanent disablement of any person shall be a fixed sum of 2[twenty-five thousand rupees].
(3) In any claim for compensation under sub-section (1), the claimant shall not be required to plead and establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act, neglect or default of the owner or owners of the vehicle or
