Back
2024 Supreme(Jhk) 1004
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUBHASH CHAND, J.
Branch Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Urmila Devi W/o Late Ashok Modi - Respondent
Misc. Appeal No. 245 of 2022
Decided On : 22-10-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Alok Lal
For the Respondents: Md. Shadab Khan, Pramod Kumar Choudhary
A driver's lack of a valid license constitutes a breach of motor insurance policy, absolving the insurer from liability for compensation in case of an accident.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 279, 337, 338, and 304-A - Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - Compensation awarded to claimants based on the negligence of the driver leading to the death of the deceased in a vehicular accident, with a total award sum of Rs.89,05,359/- directed to be paid by the Insurance Company with interest - Validity of driver's license raised as an issue by the Insurance Company, determining liability under the policy. (Paras 1, 12, 18, 21.3)
(B) Insurance Liability - The court examined whether the absence of a valid driving license constitutes a breach of the Insurance Policy - Dismissed double compensation claims based on compassionate appointments as unsubstantiated. (Paras 20-22)
Facts of the case:
The deceased was struck by a motorcycle driven rashly, resulting in fatal injuries. The claim petition was filed for compensation, which included details of the deceased's employment and income. (Paras 1, 3)
Findings of Court:
The court confirmed the Tribunal's award of compensation, but determined that the Insurance Company was not liable to pay due to a breach of policy terms regarding the driver's license. (Paras 24-25)
Issues: 1) Whether the driver had a valid license at the time of the accident, and 2) Whether the payments from compassionate appointments impact entitlement to compensation. (Paras 12, 21)
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a lack of a valid license for the driver constitutes a breach of the insurance policy, thus transferring liability away from the Insurance Company to the vehicle's owner. Compassionate appointments do not negate entitlement to compensation. (Paras 19, 21.1, 21.3)
Result: The appeal was partly allowed; the compensation award was confirmed but liability shifted from the Insurance Company to the vehicle owner.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. outline of accident and claim details. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. insurance company's argument on liability. (Para 2 , 12 , 13) |
| 3. appeal against motor accident award, addressing license validity. (Para 9) |
| 4. facts surrounding the accident and consequences. (Para 10) |
| 5. court's examination of evidence presented. (Para 11 , 14 , 15) |
| 6. court's analysis of liability and insurance policy. (Para 19) |
| 7. legal consideration for compassionate appointment and compensation. (Para 20 , 21) |
| 8. partial allowance of appeal and final award. (Para 23 , 24) |
| 9. final orders and disposal of applications. (Para 25 , 26) |
JUDGMENT :
SUBHASH CHAND, J.
1. The instant Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred against the award dated 30.04.2022 passed by the learned Principal District Judge-cum- Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhanbad in Motor Accident Claim Case No.261 of 2018, whereby the learned Tribunal has directed the appellant- Insurance Company to pay Rs.89,05,359/- to the claimants with simple interest @ 7.5% from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization within 30 days from the date of receipt of the judgment. It is further directed that the aforesaid amount shall be disbursed in equal proportion among the plaintiff Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 and the share or plaintiff Nos.4 and 5 shall be kept in the form of FDR till the date of their attaining majority.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company has assailed the impugned award on two grounds. Firstly, the learned Tribunal has not framed the issue in regard to having the valid and effective driving license by the driver of offending vehicle at the time of accident and the same being fundamental breach of the Insurance Policy, as such, no liability can be fastened to the appellant-Insurance Company. Secondly, the quantum of compensation has been assailed on the ground that the son of deceased had got compassionate appointment, therefore, he is not entitled to the amount of compensation after death of his father as it will amount double benefit to him.
3. The factual matrix of the claim petition are that on 18.06.2018 at 09:40 pm, the deceased Ashok Modi was walking on footpath way of Rajdhanwar Sariya Road near Shiv Parvati Vastralay and Bajaj Show Room at Simradhab, P.S. Birni, District Giridih. The driver of Bajaj Pulsar motorcycle bearing registration No.JH-11M-0390 came driving the motorcycle rashly and negligently and dashed to the deceased, as a result of which, Ashok Modi received multiple and grievous injuries and admitted for treatment to Community Health Centre, Birni, from there, he was referred to RIMS, Ranchi. On the way to RIMS, Ranchi, he died on 19.06.2018 at about 01:30 am. The deceased was 48 years old and was a Government Assistant Teacher in Utkramit Middle School at Markodih, P.S. Birni, District Giridih. His yearly income was Rs.8,24,494/- and was income tax payee. The FIR of the very accident was lodged with the police station, Birni, which was registered as Birni P.S. Case No.83 of 2018 under Sections 279 , 337, 338 and 304-A of the INDIAN PENAL CODE on 19.06.2018.
3.1 The owner of Bajaj Pulsar Motorcycle bearing registration No.JH-11M-0390 is Laxman Nayak, S/o Viltu Nayak, R/o Bagodih, P.S. Suriya, Giridih and the driver of the said Motorcycle was Gulsan Kumar Saw, S/o Laxman Saw. The offending vehicle was insured by the New India Assurance Company Limited bearing policy No.54070231170200003762 valid from 09.02.2018 to 08.02.2019. After his death, he left his 1st widow Urmila Devi, son Prashant Kumar and 2nd widow Rina Devi, daughter Anshu Kumari (minor) and son Aman Kumar (minor.
4. On behalf of the opposite party No.1 Laxman Nayak, who is the owner of the offending vehicle, no written statement was filed.
5. On behalf of the opposite party No.2 The New India Assurance Company Limited written statement was filed, in which, the averments made in the claim petition were denied and it was emphasized that the offending vehicle, which was insured
