Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Hon'ble Judges: Sanjay Karol, J.
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. – Appellants
Vs.
Rajan Kumar and Ors. – Respondent
Decided On: 30.12.2008
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - Motor Vehicles Act - Section 166, Section 170, Section 149 - The judgment discusses the application of the Motor Vehicles Act, particularly Section 166, Section 170, and Section 149, in a case involving a road accident and the liability of the insurance company. The court's decision is influenced by the interpretation of the provisions related to compulsory insurance coverage, the insurer's entitlement to raise a defense, and the burden of proof on the insurer to establish breach of policy conditions.
Fact of the Case:
The claimant, a 25-year-old, sustained multiple injuries in a road accident and was awarded compensation of Rs. 7,00,000 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The insurer contested the liability, citing breach of insurance policy terms, while the claimant contested the adequacy of compensation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the driver negligent and liable for the accident, and held that the insurer failed to prove the breach of policy conditions. The court also awarded interest pendente lite and future at the rate of 9% per annum to the claimant.
Issues: The issues included the negligence of the driver, the amount of compensation, non-joinder, and the validity of the driver's license.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the insurer's burden to prove breach of policy conditions and the need for cogent evidence to absolve the insurer of liability. It also highlighted the principles laid down by the Supreme Court regarding compulsory insurance coverage and the insurer's entitlement to raise a defense.
Final Decision: The appeal filed by the claimant was partly allowed, and that of the Insurance Company was dismissed. The impugned award was modified to include interest pendente lite and future at the rate of 9% per annum.
Sanjay Karol, J.
1. Both the claimant and the insurer are aggrieved by the impugned award dated 1st February, 2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hamirpur, H.P. in MAC Petition No. 22 of 2004 titled as Rajan Kumar v. Tilak Raj and Ors.
2. The claimant, 25 years of age, having sustained multiple injuries in a road accident leading to para plegia on both lower limbs, rendering him to be crippled for the rest of his life has been awarded compensation of Rs. 7, 00,000/- by the Tribunal. The claimant is aggrieved of the fact that the compensation is on the lower side whereas the insurer is aggrieved of the fact that the liability has been wrongly fastened upon the Insurance Company.
3. It is a matter on record that the insurer did not seek permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and therefore the scope of challenge in the appeal filed by the insurer is limited.
4. Claimant Sh. Rajan Kumar filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the 'Act' claiming compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/-. On 5th February, 2004 the claimant was hit by vehicle No. HR-29-B-6417 owned by Sh. Inder Singh Kataria and driven by Sh. Tilak Raj. In the accident which took place at Matewal Punjab, the claimant sustained multiple injuries and had to be hospitalized for medical treatment. Initially he was treated at Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur from where he was referred to Dayanand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana.
5. The claim petition was opposed by the owner on the ground that neither the petitioner had any locus to file the petition nor did it disclose any cause of action. The occurrence of the accident and the vehicle being driven by Sh. Tilak Raj was, however, admitted. The driver did not file any reply.
6. The insurer M/s Oriental Insurance Company, filed a reply, inter alia, pleading that the insurer was not liable to indemnify the insured for the reason that the terms and conditions of the insurance policy stood breached.
7. Based on the pleadings of the parties the Tribunal framed the following issues:
1. Whether the petitioner had suffered injuries on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1 of vehicle No. HR-29-B-6417?. ..OPP.
2. If issue No. 1 is proved, to what amount of compensation and from whom is the petitioner entitled to ?. ...OPP.
3. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder?. ...OPR-3.
4. Whether respondent No. 1 had not been in possession of a valid and effective driving license, if so, with what effect?. ..OPR-3.
8. On 29th March, 2005 the Tribunal passed the following order:
Rejoinder filed. Copy given. According to learned Counsel for respondent No. 3, copy of driving license of respondent No. 1 or particulars thereof have not been furnished. So, without making available with the record, it cannot be possible to settle the matter amicably. In the meantime, learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 requires to furnish copy of driving license of the driver by the next date positively.
At this stage, it is informed by the petitioner that he wants to amend the petition. Put up on 29.4.2005.
9. There is nothing on record to suggest as to whether the said order was complied with or not. But, however, from the subsequent orders it is evident that at no point of time did the insurer protest and bring out the non compliance of the said order.
10. It is also a matter of record that the insurer, the owner and the driver did not led any evidence in spite of the various opportunities afforded by the Tribunal.
11. Only the claimant examined himself as PW-1 and examined two other witnesses namely Sh. Bhagat Ram (PW-2) and Dr. Vipan Sharma (PW-3).
12. The record also reveals that the owner tendered in evidence copy of the insurance policy (Ext.RXX), copy of the R.C. (Ext.RXX/1) and copy of the fitness certificate (Ext.RXX/2). The same was tendered on 18th January, 2006 and even then the insurer did not raise any objection with regard to the driving license not having been furnishe
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
