Back
2016 Supreme(P&H) 2394
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
DARSHAN SINGH, J.
National Insurance Company Limited - Appellant
Versus
Udit Anand and others - Respondents
FAO No.9189 of 2014 (O&M)
Decided On : 03-12-2016
For the Appellant : Mr. Suvir Dewan.
For the Respondents: Mr. Ashwani Arora, Mr. Dinesh Maurya, for Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Ms. Shamsher Kaur.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy by the insured owner of the vehicle, as evidenced by the failure to produce the permit and fitness certificate of the truck, entitled the appellant-Insurance Company to recovery rights.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act - Compensation - Section 166 - Section 66 - [Section 166, Section 66] - The court discussed the violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy by the insured owner of the vehicle, who failed to produce the permit and fitness certificate of the truck, leading to the conclusion that the truck was being plied without any permit, which entitled the appellant-Insurance Company to recovery rights. The court referred to the case National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Chella Bharathamma 2004 (4) RCR (Civil) 399 to support its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The appeal was filed by the National Insurance Company Limited, insurer of the offending vehicle, against the award of compensation to the claimants for a motor vehicular accident under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the insured owner of the vehicle violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy by failing to produce the permit and fitness certificate of the truck, leading to the conclusion that the truck was being plied without any permit, and granted the appellant-Insurance Company the recovery rights.
Issues: The issues involved the violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy by the insured owner of the vehicle and the entitlement of the appellant-Insurance Company to recovery rights.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy by the insured owner of the vehicle, as evidenced by the failure to produce the permit and fitness certificate of the truck, which entitled the appellant-Insurance Company to recovery rights.
Final Decision: The present appeal was partly allowed, granting the appellant-Insurance Company the recovery rights to recover the awarded amount paid by it or to be paid to the claimants in satisfaction of the award from the insured/owner of the vehicle.
DARSHAN SINGH, J.
The present appeal has been preferred by the National Insurance Company Limited – insurer of truck bearing registration No. HR-58B-0182 i.e. the offending vehicle (respondent No.3 in the claim petition) against the award dated 02.07.2014, passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh (hereinafter called the “Tribunal”), in a petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the “Act”), whereby respondents No.1 to 3 - claimants have been awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 22,12,148/- on account of death of Rajesh Anand, in the motor vehicular accident which took place on 22.10.2008.
2. Notice of this appeal was given to all the respondents. Respondents No.4 and 5 i.e. the driver and owner of the truck bearing registration No. HR-58B-0182 were duly served for 29.01.2015 but in spite of their service, they did not appear to contest the present appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company contended that truck bearing registration No.HR-58B-0182 was being plied by respondent No.4 without any permit. The appellant-Insurance Company has moved an application before the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal has given a direction to respondents No.4 and 5 to produce the documents but in spite of that the copy of the permit was not produced which shows that the owner of the vehicle had no route permit, which is a violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and the appellant-Insurance Company is entitled for the recovery rights. He contended that the point regarding permit was not touched at all by the learned Tribunal.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents No.1 to 3, 6 & 7 and respondent No.8 could not repel the aforesaid contentions raised by learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company.
5. I have duly considered the aforesaid contentions.
6. Respondents No.1 to 3 have filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Act for grant of compensation on account of death of Rajesh Anand in the motor vehicle accident which took place on 22.10.2008. The claim petition was filed against the driver, owner and insurer of truck bearing registration No.HR-58B-0182 as well as the driver, owner and insurer of car bearing registration No.CH-02-2488. The negligence was attributed to respondent No.4 the driver of the truck.
7. The learned Tribunal on appreciating the evidence came to the conclusion that there was no evidence to prove the negligence on the part of the driver of car bearing registration No.CH-02-2488. It was further held that death of Rajesh Anand has occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of truck bearing registration No.HR-58B-0182 by its driver. The learned Tribunal consequently held respondents No.4, 5 and the appellant-Insurance Company jointly and severally liable for payment of the amount of compensation.
8. The appellant-Insurance Company has alleged that as the truck in question was being plied without any permit, so the appellant-Insurance Company was entitled for the recovery rights. The perusal of the record shows that on 20.12.2012 the appellant-Insurance Company has moved an application seeking direction to respondents No.4 and 5 to supply the copy of the route permit, fitness certificate, copy of the insurance policy etc. to enable it to effectively contest the claim petition. On the basis of this application, the learned Tribunal passed the order dated 20.12.2012 directing the owner and driver (respondents No.4 and 5 in the present appeal) to supply the copy of the relevant documents on the next date of hearing but those documents were not supplied to the appellant-Insurance Company. Even in its evidence respondents No.4 and 5 have only produced the copy of the registration certificate, driving licence and insurance policy. Even at that time, the permit and fitness certificate of the truck in question were not produced. Thus, respondent No.5 the owner of the vehicle has not produced the permit and
