IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUBHASH CHAND, J.
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Munni Kumari, wife of Late Ajeet Kumar - Respondents
M.A. No. 294 of 2023
Decided on : 01-10-2024
JUDGMENT :
The instant Misc. Appeal has been preferred on behalf of the appellant-Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. against the award dated 23.06.2023 whereby the appellant has been directed to deposit the compensation of Rs.50,90,176/- to claimants through RTGS or NEFT in the account number of Tribunal i.e. 21060110044674(IFSC-UCBA0002106) of UCO Bank, Civil Court, Dhanbad along with simple interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the payment within one month from the receipt of the order.
2. Further the recovery right has been given to the appellant-Insurance Company to recover the said compensation amount from the owner of offending vehicle No. JH-10BC-0341.
3. The brief facts of the claim petition giving rise to file this appeal are that on 18.08.2018 at about 02:00 p.m. deceased was on foot near the Taxi stand Bhowra, meanwhile Tempo No.JH-10BC-0341 being driven rashly and negligently dashed the deceased as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries and was brought to Jalan Hospital where he was declared dead about 07:30 p.m. during course of treatment. Said accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of Tempo No. JH-10BC-0341. The F.I.R. of this case was also lodged with the Jorapokhar (Bhowra O.P.) P.S. Case No. 89 of 2018 on 07.09.2019 under Section 279/304(A) of I.P.C. against the driver of the Tempo No. JH-10BC-0341.
3.1 The deceased was 34 years old at the time of said accident. After his death he left his legal heirs Munni Kumari, 28 years old, the wife and two minor sons Ankit Kumar and Anshu Kumar, 10 years old and 08 years old respectively and Kapildeo Prasad and Amola Devi, the father and the mother of the deceased. The deceased was lawyer by the profession. His annual income for the assessment year 2014-15 was 1,85,050/-, for the assessment year of 2016-17 was Rs. 2,35,000/- and for the assessment year 2017-18 was Rs.2,98,820/-. The owner of the said vehicle was Md. Mosinuddin, Son of Md. Sarfuddin, R/o Bhaga Bazar, P.O. Bhaga, P.S. jharia, District-Dhanbad (Jharkhand) and said vehicle was also insured with M/s Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. The policy number of the same was OG-18-2441-1803-00000935. As such for the same the compensation amount was paid.
4. On behalf of O.P.No.1 owner of the vehicle no written statement was filed.
5. On behalf of O.P.No.2-Insurance Company written statement was filed with these averments answering respondent does not admit the averments made in the claim petition and the petitioners are put to strict proof of those allegations. The driver of the said offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident and he was not qualified for holding the driving licence. As such there being the wilful breach of terms and conditions of the policy, the respondent-Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants. If any liability is saddled i.e. to be upon the respondent No.1 owner of the vehicle. The said vehicle was also plied on the road without permit authorization and fitness at the time of accident. Therefore, Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the insured i.e. owner of the offending vehicle. As per Section 158(6) of the M.V. Act it was mandatory duty of the concerned Police Station to forward all the relevant documents to the concerned insurer within 30 days from the date of information but the same has not been complied with. As such this claim petition is liable to be dismissed on the very statutory non-compliance. The alleged accident took place on 18.08.2018 whereas the F.I.R. of the same was lodged on 07.09.2018 after delay of 20 days which shows that the said accident was not genuine. The claimants in collusion with the O.P.No.1 the owner of the vehicle in order to get the wrongful gain has filed this claim petition based on wrong averments. Indeed, it was a case of hit and run accident. The special provision for making
Amrit Paul Singh vrs. TATA AIG General Insurance Company Limited (2018) 7 SCC 558
Gohar Mohammed vrs. Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. (2023) 4 SCC 381
Parmeshwari vrs. Amir Chand (2011) 11 SCC 635
Surendra Kumar Bhilawe vrs. New India Assurance Com. Ltd. (2020) 18 SCC 224
The court affirmed that in motor accident claims, the standard of proof is preponderance of probabilities, allowing claims despite procedural lapses.
The delay in lodging an FIR does not invalidate a motor accident compensation claim if satisfactorily explained, and the tribunal must evaluate evidence based on the preponderance of probabilities ra....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the duty of the tribunal to conduct a proper inquiry, appreciate relevant facts, and follow basic principles of law in determining liability and co....
The insurer is liable to indemnify compensation even if ownership transfer is unrecorded; the burden of proving permit violation lies with the insurer.
Delay in lodging an FIR cannot solely negate compensation claims if credible evidence substantiates the claim, emphasizing the need for a just compensation framework in motor accident cases.
Delay in lodging an FIR does not invalidate a compensation claim if justified by circumstances such as medical treatment of the victim.
Delay in lodging an FIR in motor accident claims does not negate the right to compensation if justified, and the assessment of compensation must be based on credible evidence of income and injuries.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.