Back
2009 Supreme(HP) 623
HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KAROL, J.
BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD
Appellant
VERSUS
SMT. SANTOSH CHAUHAN AND OTHERS
Respondents
FAO (MVA) No. 213 of 2008
Decided on 7-07-2009
For the appellant:Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Advocate, for the appellant. For the respondents:Mr. Ramesh Negi, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. B. S. Chauhan, Advocate, for respondents No. 4 and 5.
The burden of proof lies with the insurer to establish the breach of policy terms, and compensation must be determined based on evidence.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicle Act - Compensation - Section 166, Section 170 - Ext. RW1/A, Ext. R-1 - The court discussed the provisions of Section 166 and Section 170 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, and the insurance policy Ext. R-1. It highlighted the requirement to specifically plead and prove the breach of terms and conditions of the policy, and the burden of proof on the insurer. The court also emphasized the need for evidence to support claims and the correct determination of compensation.
Fact of the Case:
The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, seeking compensation for the death of Sh. Mathu Ram in a vehicle accident. The insurer contested the petition, claiming that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger and the policy terms were breached.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the deceased died in an accident due to the driver's negligence and held the insurer liable to indemnify the insured. It dismissed the insurer's application under Section 170 of the Act and rejected the plea of violation of policy terms. The court also refused the claimants' plea for enhanced compensation.
Issues: The issues included the cause of the deceased's death, the entitlement and amount of compensation, the validity of the driver's license, and the violation of insurance policy terms.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for specific pleading and proof of policy breaches, the burden of proof on the insurer, and the correct determination of compensation based on evidence.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the award of compensation to the claimants.
Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral):-The insurer-appellant herein has assailed the impugned award dated 15.1.2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shimla in M.A.C.C. No. 27-S/2 of 2006, titled as Smt. Santosh Chauhan and others versus Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. and others.
2. The necessary facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are as under:
3. Present respondents No. 1 to 3, as claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) alleging that their predecessor-in-interest Sh. Mathu Ram was travelling in vehicle (Alto car No. HP-09A-1295) on 27.11.2005 which was owned by Sh. Rajinder Singh, respondent No. 4 herein and driven by Sh. Pradeep alias Happy, respondent No. 5 herein. Unfortunately due to the negligence of the driver, on the said date the vehicle met with an accident as a result of which Sh. Mathu Ram died on the spot. He was brought to Civil Hospital, Nerwa, H.P. where he was declared dead by the Doctor. F.I.R. dated 27.11.2005 was registered with the Police Station, Chopal under Sections 279, 337 IPC. The deceased Sh. Mathu Ram was a young man of 46 years of age and the only bread earner in the family. He was having an annual income of Rs. 9 lacs and thus the claimants were entitled to a compensation of Rs. 25 lacs.
4. The vehicle was insured with M/s Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. and the insurer contested the petition by filing the reply, inter alia pleading that at the time of the accident the deceased was travelling as a gratuitous passenger and the material terms and conditions of the policy having been breached, the insurer was not liable to have indemnified the insured.
5. Importantly, in the reply it is not the case of the insurer that the claim petition was filed in collusion with the driver or the owner of the vehicle.
6. The owner and the driver filed a joint reply and contested the petition by disputing the negligence of the driver or the income of the deceased.
7. The insurer also filed an application dated 6.6.2006 on 20.6.2006 under Section 170 of the Act, contents whereof are reproduced in entirety as under:
“APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT No.1 UNDER SECTION 170 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT.
Respectfully Showeth:-
8. That the Claimants Non-applicants have filed the claim petition for compensation on account of death of one Sh. Mathu Ram, while travelling in the vehicle being driven by respondent No. 3.
9. That the claim petition has been filed by the petitioner/Non Applicant in collusion with respondent No. 2 & 3. In view of the facts the applicant/ respondent No. 1 apprehends that respondent No.2 and Respondent No.3 will not properly and effectively contest the petition. It will be therefore in the interest of justice, if the applicant is allowed to take all the defences as available to it under Motor Vehicle Act. It is therefore prayed that the application may kindly be allowed and the applicant/respondent No. 3 be allowed to take all defences as available under the Motor Vehicle Act.”
Based on the pleadings of the parties the Tribunal passed the order dated 20.7.2006, framing the issues and dismissing the insurer’s application in the following terms:-
“No rejoinder is sought to be filed. Documents filed by the petitioner. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:-
(1) Whether deceased died as a result of rash or negligent driving of respondent No. 3? OPP
(2) In case issue No. 1 is proved, to what amount the petitioners are entitled and from which of the respondents? OPP
(3) Whether respondent No.3 was not having a valid and effective driving licence as alleged? OPR-3
(4) Whether the vehicle was being driven in violation of the terms of the insurance policy, as alleged? OPR-3.
(5) Relief. Issues read over and explained. No other issue arise or claimed. For petitioners evidence, to come up on 30th October, 2006. Process fee etc. within fifteen days be
