SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(HP) 150

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, J.
Assistant Executive Engineer, PHS/Div. No. III - Appellant
Versus
Hemanti Bhatt, W/o. Sh. Hemant Kumar Bhatt & Ors. - Respondents
First Appeal From Order No. 71 of 2022
Decided On : 21-04-2022

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Sh. Tara Singh Chauhan and Sh. Shaurya Sharma.
For the Respondents:Sh. Prashant Sharma, Advocate, Vice Mr. Lakshay Parihar, Sh. Deepak Bhasin.

Point of Law : Under section II 1 (i) of the policy-Death or bodily injury. Such amount as is necessary to meet the requirements of the motor vehicle act 1988.

Headnote:

Motor vehicles Act, 1988 – Appeal - Accident due to rash and negligent act - Appeal has been preferred against award passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-II, in MAC Petition, whereby compensation alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from date of filing of petition till payment, has been awarded in favour of respondents (claimants), on account of death of deceased in a motor accident, while deceased was traveling in Jeepsy, owned and possessed by appellant, being driven by deceased.

Finding of the Court :

Appellant is claiming that accident did not take place on account of rash and negligent driving of its employee, but because of mechanical defect and on other hand in same breadth it is contended on behalf of appellant that accident had taken place due to rash and negligent act of driver, who was under influence of alcohol - It is an admitted fact that driver was none else, but employee of Electricity Board and nothing has been placed on record to establish that he was occupying vehicle unauthorizedly or he was not authorized to drive vehicle - Though, vehicle was registered in name of Assistant Executive Engineer, but vehicle is actually owned by H.P. State Electricity Board and there is no legal evidence proved on record that driver was under influence of liquor at time of accident and further that accident had taken place due to drunken driving - To contrary it is also plea of appellant that accident took place due to mechanical fault in vehicle, but not for rash and negligent driving of anyone, therefore, these contrary grounds are also not sustainable to interfere in award.

Result : Appeal is dismissed

JUDGMENT :

This appeal has been preferred against award dated 7.9.2018 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-II, Shimla (for short ‘MACT’) in MAC Petition No. 29-S/2 of 2015, titled Hemanti Bhatt & others Vs. The Assistant Executive Engineer & another, whereby compensation of 68,93,496/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of petition till the payment, has been awarded in favour of respondents No. 1 to 3 (claimants), on account of death of deceased Shireesh Bhatt in a motor accident dated 24.2.2015, while deceased was traveling in Jeepsy No. HP26-0131, owned and possessed by appellant, being driven by deceased Varun Chauhan,

2. For request and consent of parties, this appeal has been heard finally today and being decided as such.

3. Vehicle of appellant was ensured with respondent No. 4-National Insurance Company. Learned MACT has fastened liability upon appellant to pay the entire completion as apportioned in the award i.e. 80%:15%:5% amongst mother, father and brother respectively.

4. Appeal has been preferred mainly on the ground that occupants of vehicle were also covered under the Insurance Policy and, therefore, claim, if any payable, is to be indemnified by respondent No.4-Insurance Company; that as the accident in question had taken place due to mechanical defect involving no human error in the accident and, therefore, appellant was not liable to pay the compensation; that quantum of compensation has been determined on the basis of wrong calculation of monthly income of deceased; that the accident did not take place due to rash and negligent driving of an employee of appellant; that deceased person driving the vehicle was under the influence of alcohol and accident had taken place on account of his rash and negligent act and thus appellant is not liable to pay the compensation.

5. It is undisputed that vehicle was insured with respondent No. 4-Insruance Company vide Insurance Policy, Ex. PW-2/A, which is a Policy covering the risk of ‘liability only’ of a private car. ‘Liability only’ policy conditions have been placed on record as RW-2/B, wherein relevant liability clause reads as under:-

    “1. Subject to the limit of liability as laid down in the schedule hereto the Company will indemnify the insured in the event of accident caused by or arising out of the use of the Motor Vehicle anywhere in India against all sums including claimant’s costs and expenses which the insured shall become legally liable to pay in respect of-

(i) death of or bodily injury to any person so far as it is necessary to met the requirements of the Motor Vehicles Act.

(ii) Damage to property other than property belonging to the insured or held in trust or in the custody or control of the insured up to the limit specified in the schedule.”

6. This Policy also covers personal accident for owner-driver, which reads as under:-

    “Subject otherwise to the terms exceptions condition and limitations of this Policy, the company undertakes to pay compensation as per the following scale for bodily injury/death sustained by the owner-driver of the vehicle in direct connection with the vehicle insured or whilst mounting into/dismounting from or traveling in the insured vehicle as a co-driver, caused by violent accidental external and visible means which independently of any other cause shall within six calendar months of such injury result in-

Scale of compensation

(i)

Death

100%

(ii)

Loss of two limbs or sight of two eyes or one limb and sight of one eye.

100%

(iii)

Loss of one Limb or sight of one eye.

50%

(iv)

Permanent total disablement from injuries other than named above.”

100%

7. In general exceptions clause 4 is also relevant for this purpose, which reads as under:-

    “4. Except so far as is necessary to meet the requirements of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Company shall not be liable in respect

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    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

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top