Back
2020 Supreme(J&K) 572
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT SRINAGAR
Vinod Chatterji Koul, J.
United India Insurance Company Limited
Versus
Union of India and Ors.
CIMA No.03/2010
Decided on 16.12.2020
Appearing Counsel:
For the Appellant(s):Mr. N.H. Khuroo, Advocate
For the Respondent(s): Mr. T.M. Shamsi, ASGI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for proper evidence and assessment of damages in motor accident claims, as mandated by the Motor Vehicles Act and the Insurance Act.
Headnote:
Insurance - Motor Accident Claims - Motor Vehicles Act - [United India Insurance Company Limited - Motor Accident Claims - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 166] - The court discussed the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, particularly Section 166, and the obligations of the insurance company to indemnify the insured and pay compensation. The court emphasized the requirement for evidence to establish the actual loss caused and the need for proper assessment of damages by a licensed surveyor as per the Insurance Act.
Fact of the Case:
A claim petition was filed by respondent no.1 before the Tribunal, seeking compensation for damages caused by a motor vehicle accident. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.16,96,333/- with interest, which the appellant Insurance Company sought to quash. The appellant contended that the claimant failed to provide sufficient evidence of the actual loss and that the Tribunal erred in ignoring the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Tribunal had ignored crucial evidence, including the report of the surveyor appointed by the appellant Insurance Company, and had granted compensation without proper assessment of damages. As a result, the court set aside the impugned Award and directed the appellant-Insurance Company to pay compensation of Rs.95,396/- to the respondent no.1 along with interest.
Issues: The issues included the determination of liability for the accident, the assessment of damages, and the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain the claim petition beyond a specified amount as per the Motor Vehicles Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for proper evidence to establish the actual loss caused and the requirement for assessment of damages by a licensed surveyor as per the Insurance Act. The court also highlighted the importance of considering all relevant evidence, including reports and communications, in reaching a decision.
Final Decision: The Appeal succeeded, and the impugned Award was set aside. The claim petition of respondent no.1 was disposed of with a direction to appellant-Insurance Company to pay compensation of Rs.95,396/- to respondent no.1 along with interest.
Judgment
Vinod Chatterji Koul, J.—United India Insurance Company Limited – appellant herein, is aggrieved of and seeks quashment of Award dated 25th September 2009, given by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Leh (for brevity “Tribunal”) on a claim petition, being File no.13/claim, titled Union of India v. Reyaz Ahmad Tabedar and others, saddling appellant Insurance Company with liability to indemnify insured and pay compensation of Rs.16,96,333/- with interest @ 7.5% from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization, on the grounds mentioned in the Appeal.
2. A claim petition was filed by respondent no.1 before the Tribunal on 26th August 2005, in which it was averred that an accident took place on 13th June 2002 at 1805 hours near TCP Budkharbu AWD 852 Field Workshop Company, due to rash and negligent driving by driver of offending vehicle (Truck bearing Registration no.JK03/4718). The vehicle is stated to have broken boundary pillars and fencing wire of Army workshop and hit two army vehicles, which were parked there and caused damage to vehicles for an amount of Rs.1,96,333/-. FIR is stated to have been lodged with police station Kargil and challan was produced before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kargil.
3. Upon presentation of claim petition before the Tribunal, notices were issued to respondents. Initially, driver of vehicle was set ex parte and later owner and Insurance Company were also set ex parte vide order dated 18th February 2006 and consequently the case was posted for recording ex parte statement of witnesses of claimant/respondent no.1. One witness was adduced by respondent no.1 before the Tribunal. However, an application was made by appellant Insurance Company before the Tribunal for withdrawing ex parte proceedings, which was allowed by the Tribunal and as a result whereof written statement was filed. Appellant Insurance Company insisted that it was bounden duty of claimant to inform Insurance Company about alleged occurrence so that necessary steps could have been taken for assessment of loss, but since claimant failed to inform Insurance Company about occurrence and has itself assessed the loss without proper inspection of appellant Insurance Company, which was not warranted under law. It is asserted that on receipt of loss, appellant Insurance Company deputed Shri H.S. Mehta, Surveyor and Loss Assessor and valuer, to conduct the spot survey/ assessment of offending vehicle. It was also averred by appellant Insurance Company that during spot survey, aforenamed Surveyor inspected damaged vehicle and it was found that vehicle had sustained very minor damages. Insurance Company is stated to have been duty bound to get loss assessed by licensed IRDA Surveyor, as was required under the Insurance Act, in respect of damaged vehicles. The surveyor is said to have made assessment of damaged vehicle and worked out net damage as Rs.95,396/-.
4. Tribunal, in view of pleadings of parties, on 4th October 2006 framed following Issues:
1. Whether Army vehicle ALSMK-II Recovery BANDOIPO13875L was hit by civil truck no.JK03/4718 on 13.6.2006 at Budhkharbu near TCP AWD 852 field Work Company due to rash and negligent driving of driver of civil truck no.JK03/4718? OPP
2. If Issue no.1 is proved in affirmative then whether petitioner is entitled to compensation on account damages to army vehicle, if yes then how much and from whom? OPP
3. Whether accident took place due to contributory negligence of both vehicles? OPR3
4. Whether petitioner has violated terms of policy, if yes, then what is its effect on claim petition? OPR3
5. Whether this Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition beyond Rs.6000/- as per provision of M.V. Act? OPR3
5. File also reveals that from 5th October 2006 onwards, a number of witnesses were adduced by respondent no.1 before the Tribunal. By impugned Award, Tribunal directed appellant Insurance Company to pay compensation in the amount of Rs.16,96,333/- with interest
