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

2024 Supreme(Jhk) 898

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

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Alok Lal, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. Rajiv Kumar Karan, Advocate

The court affirmed that in motor accident claims, the standard of proof is preponderance of probabilities, allowing claims despite procedural lapses.

Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 158(6) and 159 - Compensation awarded to claimants for death in a motor vehicle accident - Insurance Company directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,90,176/- with interest at 7.5% per annum - Recovery rights granted to Insurance Company against vehicle owner due to breach of policy terms. (Paras 1, 19, 20)

(B) Claim maintainability - The Tribunal found the claim petition maintainable despite delay in FIR lodging and non-compliance with statutory provisions, emphasizing the preponderance of probabilities standard in motor accident claims. (Paras 18.6, 19)

(C) Evidence evaluation - The Tribunal relied on eyewitness accounts and documentary evidence, affirming the occurrence of the accident and the liability of the Insurance Company. (Paras 21, 22)

Facts of the case:
The deceased, a lawyer, was struck by a Tempo while walking, resulting in fatal injuries. The Insurance Company contested liability, citing lack of a valid driving license and permit for the vehicle.

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal confirmed the accident's occurrence and awarded compensation, allowing the Insurance Company to recover from the vehicle owner.

Issues: The main issues included the maintainability of the claim, the validity of the driver's license, and the Insurance Company's liability.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the claim was maintainable despite procedural lapses, emphasizing that the standard of proof in motor accident claims is based on preponderance of probabilities rather than strict evidence.

Result: Appeal dismissed; the impugned award is confirmed.

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

          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