Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
Magma HDI General Insurance Co. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Jageshwar Ram son of late Cholo Ram – Respondent
M.A. No.304 of 2019, M.A. No.299 of 2019
Decided on : 01-08-2023
Motor Vehicle Accident - Compensation - Indian Penal Code, Sections 279, 337, 338, 304A - Pappu & Ors. vs. Vinod Kumar Lamba & Anr. (2018) 3 SCC 208 - Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Premlata Shukla & Ors. (2007) 13 SCC 476
Fact of the Case:
The appeals arose from the same accident involving the death of Mithlesh Kumar and Sumitra Devi in a motor vehicle accident. The claimants sought compensation from the insurance company, and the tribunal awarded sums to be paid by the insurance company.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the insurance company was liable to pay the compensation amount as it did not plead or take the defense that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have a valid driving license. The court dismissed the appeals and directed the remittance of the statutory amount to the tribunal.
Issues: The issues included the maintainability of the claim case, the cause of action, the cause of death, negligence in driving, violation of insurance policy terms, and entitlement to compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the judgment of Pappu & Ors. vs. Vinod Kumar Lamba & Anr. to establish that the insurance company must plead and take the defense that the offending vehicle was not driven by an authorized person with a valid license to shift the burden to the owner. The court also relied on Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Premlata Shukla & Ors. to emphasize the reliance on the contents of the FIR and charge sheet to prove the accident.
Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed, and the statutory amount was directed to be remitted to the tribunal.
JUDGMENT :
By the Court :
1. Heard the parties.
2. Since both the appeals have arisen out of the same accident, hence, both these appeals are disposed of by this common judgment.
3. No one turns up on behalf of the respondents though notices have been validly served upon the respondents. Hence, both these appeals are heard ex-parte against the respective respondents.
4. M.A. No. 304 of 2019 has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 10.04.2019 passed by the Principal District Judge-cum-Presiding Officer-Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Koderma in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 02 of 2017 in respect of death of Mithlesh Kumar and M.A. No. 299 of 2019 has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 15.04.2019 passed by the Principal District Judge-cum-Presiding Officer-Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Koderma in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 03 of 2017 in respect of death of Sumitra Devi who is the wife of deceased- Mithlesh Kumar.
5. In Motor Accident Claim Case No. 02 of 2017, the learned Tribunal has awarded as sum of Rs.9,98,000/- with interest thereon at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of institution of the case i.e. on 10.01.2017 and directed the appellant-opposite party no.3- insurance company to pay the said amount within one month and in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 03 of 2017, the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.5,66,000/- with interest thereon at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of institution of the case i.e. on 10.01.2017 and directed the appellant-opposite party no.3- insurance company to pay the said amount within one month.
6. The common facts of both the cases is that on 18.08.2016 when Mithlesh Kumar along with his wife Sumitra Devi and children were going by a motorcycle and parked the motorcycle by the side of the road and crossing the road, the truck bearing registration no. JH-12C-3148 being driven rashly and negligently by its driver dashed them due to which Mithlesh Kumar and Sumitra Devi sustained severe injuries and died at the spot.
7. It is stated that the deceased- Mithlesh Kumar was aged about 27 years at the time of his death and was working as a mason and was earning Rs.300/- per day and taking into consideration the working days in a month to be 26, Rs.7,800/- per month. The deceased- Sumitra Devi is stated to be aged about 25 years and she was doing the agricultural work and earning Rs.3,000/- per month.
8. In connection with the said accident, Chandwara P.S. Case No. 66 of 2016 dated 18.08.2016 corresponding to G.R. No. 862 of 2016, involving the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of Indian Penal Code was registered against the driver of the offending truck, the certified copy of the FIR has been marked Ext. 1. After completion of investigation; police submitted charge sheet, against the driver of the offending vehicle namely Foudi Kumar Yadav being the opposite party no.2.
9. Upon service of notice the opposite party no.1-owner of the vehicle though appeared in the learned Tribunal but did not file written statement and he was debarred from filing written statement in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 02 of 2017 on 08.01.2019 and in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 03 of 2017, the opposite party no.1-owner of the vehicle did not appear in-spite of receiving summon hence, Motor Accident Claim Case No. 03 of 2017 proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 02.08.2018.
10. The appellant-opposite party no.3-insurance company filed written statement challenging the maintainability of the claim application on various technical grounds. The appellant-opposite party no.3-insurance company then pleaded that as the claimant has not filed vehicular papers like R.C. Book, Road Permit, Tax token, driving licence and other vehicular documents in support of their petition so, the appellant-opposite party no.3-insurance company is not liable to indemnify the insured.
11. The opposite party no.2-Foudi Yadav- the alleged driver of the offending truck bearing regi
AI
The insurance company must plead and take the defense that the offending vehicle was not driven by an authorized person with a valid license to shift the burden to the owner.
Insurance companies must prove driver's lack of valid driving licence to avoid liability. Adverse inference against the owner applies for non-production of licence details.
The court ruled that contributory negligence cannot be inferred solely from a site plan when eyewitness testimony indicates no fault, and clarified compensation calculations regarding deductions and ....
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
