Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2011 Supreme(P&H) 1800

2012 (2) RCR(Civ) 183
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J.
National Insurance Company Ltd.- Appellant
Versus
Rajender Giri and others - Respondents
FAO NO. 3859 of 2009 (O&M)
Decided on: 12.10.2011
Rajender Giri - Appellant
Versus
Avtar Singh and others - Respondents
FAO NO. 1124 of 2010(O&M)
Decided on: 12.10.2011

Advocates appeared:
Mr. L.M. Suri, Senior Advocate with Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate Vikram Bali, Advocate for the appellant in FAO No.3859 of 2009 and for respondent no.3 in FAO No.1124 of 2010.
Mr. O.P. Gupta, Advocate for respondent no.1 in FAO No.3859 of 2009 and for the appellant in FAO No.1124 of 2010.
Mr. Saurabh Kaushik, Advocate for respondents no.2 and 3 in FAO No.3859 of 2009 and for respondents no.1 & 2 in FAO No.1124 of 2010.

The violation of insurance policy terms and conditions due to the absence of a valid route permit for plying the vehicle in a specific state does not necessarily absolve the insurer from liability, as interpreted in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Challa Bharathamma and the application of Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Headnote:
Delay in filing appeal - Motor Accident Claims - National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Challa Bharathamma - Sections 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - The court allowed the delay in filing the appeal and condoned the delay in re-filing. The court discussed the violation of insurance policy terms and conditions due to the absence of a valid route permit for plying the vehicle in the State of Haryana, referencing the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Challa Bharathamma and the interpretation of Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The court concluded that the violation of bringing the vehicle to the State of Haryana without a valid route permit did not amount to a violation of the insurance policy conditions, and therefore, the insurer did not have a defense under Section 149(2) of the Act.
Fact of the Case:

Rajender Giri, the claimant, suffered injuries in a road side accident and brought an appeal with a delay of 216 days. The National Insurance Company Limited sought recalling of the order and recovery rights against the owner and driver due to the absence of a route permit for the offending vehicle in the State of Haryana. The claimant sought enhancement of compensation for the injuries suffered in the accident.
Finding of the Court:

The court allowed the delay in filing the appeal, condoned the delay in re-filing, dismissed the appeal brought by the insurance company, and allowed the appeal brought by the claimant, enhancing the compensation from Rs.90,000 to Rs.1,20,000.
Issues: The issues framed by the Tribunal included the occurrence of the accident, entitlement to recover compensation, validity of the driving license, and relief.
Ratio Decidendi: The court discussed the violation of insurance policy terms and conditions due to the absence of a valid route permit for plying the vehicle in the State of Haryana, referencing the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Challa Bharathamma and the interpretation of Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The court concluded that the violation of bringing the vehicle to the State of Haryana without a valid route permit did not amount to a violation of the insurance policy conditions, and therefore, the insurer did not have a defense under Section 149(2) of the Act.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal brought by the insurance company and allowed the appeal brought by the claimant, enhancing the compensation from Rs.90,000 to Rs.1,20,000.

JUDGMENT

Vijender Singh Malik, J.

1. Rajender Giri, the claimant, who had suffered injuries in a road side accident has brought FAO No.1124 of 2010. It has been brought with a delay of 216 days in filing the same. He has claimed that he has been working as a labourer in a factory and on account of the accident, his income had stopped and he was not in a position to even apply for copy of award, passed by the Tribunal. He has submitted that he could apply for the copy of award only on 08.09.2009 and the same was supplied to him on 11.09.2009 and, therefore, the delay in filing the appeal.

2. Learned counsel for the respondents in FAO No.1124 of 2010 have no serious objection to the prayer made in the application. In view of the same, the application for delay of 216 days in filing the appeal, is allowed.

3. For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 27 days in re-filing FAO No.3859 of 2009 is condoned.

5. In FAO No.3859 of 2009, the National Insurance Company Limited, saddled with the liability to pay compensation, has sought recalling of the order dated 22.02.2009 passed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,Panipat (for short 'the Tribunal) and for grant of recovery rights to it against the owner and driver on the ground that the offending vehicle on the date of accident did not have a route permit for plying it in the State of Haryana.

5. In FAO No. 1124 of 2010, Rajender Giri, the claimant has sought enhancement of compensation on various grounds. The brief facts required to be noticed for decision of these two appeals are as under:-

6. On 07.02.2008 Rajender Giri, petitioner alongwith one Satish was going on a motorcycle from Kaithal to Panipat. When they were near Bus Stand, Nimwala, their motorcycle was hit by a Tata vehicle bearing registration no.RJ-13/1 G-0695 , driven by respondent no.1. The claimant suffered injuries in the said accident in which his companion died. The appellant sought compensation in a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-for the multiple injuries suffered by him in the said accident.

7. The respondents resisted the claim petition denying the very accident to have taken place. It is claimed by respondent nos. 1 and 2 that respondent no.1 has been falsely implicated in a criminal case got registered against him. Respondent no.3, however, took some objections, on the basis of which, it is claimed that the terms and conditions of the insurance policy were violated and that it is not liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.

8. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal:-

“1 Whether accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle No.RJ-13/1G-0685 by respondent no.1? OPP

2 Whether claimants are entitled to recover compensation from respondents, if so to what extent? OPP

3. Whether respondent no.1 had no valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident? OPR

4-Relief”

9. The parties led their respective evidence and hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned Tribunal took up all the three issues together and has observed in para no.11 of the award that respondent no.3 has not led any evidence to show that respondent no.1 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident. In para no.13 of the award, the argument of learned counsel for respondent no.3 has been noticed to the effect that respondent no.1 did not possess any route permit to ply the vehicle in the State of Haryana. This contention of learned counsel for respondent no.3 was repelled by observing that no doubt in the absence of route permit respondent no.1 may have driven the offending vehicle illegally in the State of Haryana yet this lapse on his part shall not absolve the insurer from its liability towards the petitioner. Learned Tribunal had consequently awarded a sum of Rs.90,000/- as compensation to the injured.

10. Aggrieved by the aforesaid award, the claimant as well as the insurer have brought these two appeals.

11. I have heard learned

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis