Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Murli Manohar Prasad, S/o Sri Ram Lakhan Sahu – Appellant
Versus
Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
Heard, learned counsel for the parties.
1. The appellants being the owner and driver of the offending vehicle are in appeal, against the judgment and Award of compensation dated 05.08.2016 passed by learned Principal District Judge- cum- MACT, Gumla, in M.A.C. Case No.4/ 2009 by which the liability to pay compensation has been fixed on them under Section 166 of the M. V.Act.
2. The facts of the case are not in dispute and not under-challenge that on 12.03.2006, that the informant along with other persons were travelling in Bus bearing Registration No.BR 41P -2904 which met with an accident in which the claimant- Belo Minz sustained permanent disability in the said accident.
3. The instant Misc. Appeal has been preferred mainly on the ground that the offending vehicle was under the insurance cover of Respondent No.1 [The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.] at the relevant time of accident and the liability has been saddled on the appellant No.1 only on the ground that the vehicle was not having a permit for contract carriage, which amounted to statutory breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy under Section 149(2) of the M.V. Act.
4. It is
The absence of evidence for contract carriage usage invalidates claims of insurance policy breach, emphasizing that passenger status does not imply vehicle hiring.
The insurance company is liable to pay compensation to claimants if a valid permit exists at the time of the accident, negating any right to recover from the vehicle owner.
The court held that actionable evidence is necessary to establish a breach of insurance policy terms before imposing liability on the owner.
Insurance companies cannot deny compensation claims due to permit breaches; they maintain rights of recovery against vehicle owners while proper methods must be utilized for dependency calculations.
The court established that contractual engagement with a transport corporation can negate permit requirements, and the burden of proof lies with the insurance company to demonstrate any licensing vio....
Liability of the insurance company in a motor accident case and the inapplicability of permit condition violation as a defense under Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act
Insurance companies cannot evade liability without conclusive evidence of policy breaches, and the burden of proving contributory negligence lies with them.
Liability of insurance under Motor Vehicles Act remains unless breach of policy terms is proven; quantum of compensation must reflect proper assessment of income and dependents.
The Insurer cannot evade liability for compensation due to permit violations that do not constitute a fundamental statutory infraction.
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
