Back
2022 Supreme(J&K) 688
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
SANJAY DHAR, J.
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Razia Begum & Ors. – Respondents
MA No. 154 of 2014
Decided on : 17-11-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Vishnu Gupta
For the Respondent: K.K. Pathan
IMPORTANT POINT
An insurance policy does not cover risks for individuals traveling in a vehicle beyond its permitted capacity, and the burden of proof regarding policy breaches can be established through the claimants' own evidence.
Headnote:
INSURANCE - MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Rule 28 of the Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989 - The court discussed the breach of insurance policy conditions regarding the deceased's capacity while traveling on the tractor. It highlighted that the insurance policy did not cover risks for individuals traveling in violation of the permitted capacity of the vehicle. The court concluded that the deceased was not covered under the insurance policy as he was not traveling as a laborer and was in breach of the policy terms.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant-Insurance Company challenged the award of Rs. 7,49,000/- compensation granted by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal to the legal heirs of the deceased, Taharuf Hussain, who died in a tractor accident. The Tribunal found the accident resulted from the negligent driving of the tractor, and the claimants contended that the deceased was working with the tractor.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the deceased was not traveling as a laborer on the tractor, as claimed by the respondents, but rather in violation of the insurance policy terms. The Tribunal's conclusion was deemed erroneous as it ignored evidence indicating the deceased's actual capacity while traveling on the tractor.
Issues: Whether the deceased was traveling on the tractor in a capacity covered by the insurance policy and whether there was a breach of the policy conditions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the deceased was not covered under the insurance policy as he was traveling in violation of the permitted capacity of the tractor, which only allowed the driver. The court emphasized that the insurance company was not required to provide evidence to support its claim when the evidence from the claimants contradicted their assertions.
Final Decision: The court set aside the Tribunal's award regarding the finding on the breach of policy conditions and directed that the awarded sum, once satisfied by the Insurance Company, could be recovered from the owner and driver of the tractor jointly and severally.
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY DHAR, J.
1. The appellant-Insurance Company has called in question the award dated 03.12.2013 passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Poonch whereby a sum of Rs. 7,49,000/- has been awarded as compensation in favour of the claimants/ Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 herein.
2. It appears that on 26.09.2005, an accident took place as a result of which deceased - Taharuf Hussain, who was travelling on a tractor Bearing No. JK12/1147 received fatal injuries. The legal heirs/dependents of the deceased (Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 herein) filed a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Poonch. The learned Tribunal after holding the enquiry and considering the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle (tractor) in question by its driver that has resulted in death of the deceased. The learned Tribunal after taking the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 4,500/- assessed the compensation in favour of the dependents, who happened to be the parents of the deceased, widow of the deceased and minor daughter of the deceased, in the amount of Rs. 7,49,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum.
3. The owner and driver of the tractor did not contest the claim petition before the learned Tribunal whereas the appellant-Insurance Company filed its written statement before the learned Tribunal contesting the claim petition. One of the contentions raised by the appellant-Insurance Company in its written statement filed before the learned Tribunal was that there has been breach of conditions of policy of Insurance on the part of the insured, inasmuch as, that the deceased was allowed to travel on the tractor at the relevant time, which is not legally permissible, nor his risk was covered under the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance. In this regard, the learned Tribunal framed the following issue:-
"2. Whether the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have violated the terms and conditions of Insurance policy, as such petitioners are not entitled to compensation? OPR"
4. After hearing the parties, the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that since the appellant-Insurance Company has failed to produce any evidence in support of its contentions, as such, the issue is not proved and accordingly, the same was decided against the appellant-Insurance Company.
5. The appellant is particularly aggrieved of this finding of the learned Tribunal on the ground that even if the appellant-Insurance Company had not led any evidence in the case, still there was enough evidence on record available before the learned Tribunal to decide the said issue in favour of the appellant-Insurance Company. It has been submitted that without taking into account the evidence already available on record, it was not open to the learned Tribunal to discard the contentions of the appellant-Insurance Company so far as the same related to the breach of policy conditions.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the Tribunal.
7. As per the claim petition, the deceased was working with the offending tractor that was being used for agriculture purposes. In its reply, the appellant-Insurance Company has specifically denied the averments made in the claim petition in this regard and it has been claimed that there has been violation of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. In the copy of the challan filed along with the claim petition and the other evidence led by the claimants, it has been specifically mentioned that the deceased was travelling on the offending tractor at the time of the accident. So there is no dispute to the fact that the deceased was travelling on the offending tractor at the time of the accident. The only question to be determined is as to in what capacity the deceased was travelling on the tractor and whether risk to his life was covered under the terms of the insurance policy.
8. The claimants/respondents
