Back
2015 Supreme(P&H) 1869
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Karam Chand Puri, J.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. - Appellants
Vs.
Jagat Narain Goel & Others - Respondents
F.A.O. Nos. 2229 & 2513 of 2002 (O&M)
Decided On : 09-04-2015
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : R.M. Suri
For the Respondents: Ashwani Arora
The burden is on the insurer to establish breach of policy by leading cogent evidence to avoid liability in motor vehicular accident cases.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act - Compensation - Section 166 - [166] - The court discussed the liability of the insurance company in a motor vehicular accident case and the interpretation of the legal provisions under the Motor Vehicles Act. The court highlighted the principle established in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh and Others, (2004) 3 SCC 297, stating that mere absence, fake, or invalid license at the relevant time are not defenses available against the insurer or 3rd parties. The burden is on the insurer to establish breach of policy by leading cogent evidence.
Fact of the Case:
The claimant sought compensation for injuries sustained in a motor vehicular accident. The insurance company appealed to avoid liability based on the driver's invalid license.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the insurance company failed to prove negligence and fault on the part of the owner to exercise reasonable care in compliance with the policy, dismissing the appeal.
Issues: The issues included the cause of the accident, entitlement to compensation, and relief.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the insurance company must establish breach of policy by leading cogent evidence to avoid liability.
Final Decision: The appeal by the insurance company was dismissed, and the claimant was held entitled to an enhanced compensation amount.
Karam Chand Puri, J.
By this common judgment I intend to dispose of FAO No. 2513 of 2002 titled as National Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Jagat Narain Goel and others preferred by appellant-National Insurance Co. Ltd. against the impugned award and FAO No. 2229 of 2002 titled as Jagat Narain Goel versus Raj Kumar and others, preferred by the claimant for enhancement of the compensation amount. For convenience facts are being taken from FAO No. 2513 of 2002 titled as National Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Jagat Narain Goel and others.
2. Challenge in these appeals is the Award dated 04.01.2002 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri vide which claim petition preferred by the Jagat Narain Goel-claimant was allowed with costs and an amount of Rs. 2,40,000/- was awarded as compensation along with interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of filing the claim petition till payment from respondent Nos. 1 to 3 were held jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of compensation but the payment was ordered to be made by respondent No. 3 Insurance Company.
3. Claimant-Jagat Narain Goel has preferred claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act (in short - the Act)
4. Brief facts of the present case are that claimant has sought compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- on account of injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicular accident on the allegations that on 14.4.2000 while he was going from Jagadhri to Yamuna Nagar on his cycle on the left hand side of the road with all care and caution and when at about 11.30a.m., he reached Kanhaya Chowk, Yamuna Nagar at that time Haryana Roadways bus bearing registration No. HR-37-1049 driven by respondent No. 1 rashly and negligently without giving any horn came from behind i.e., Jagadhri side and the bus struck against the cycle of the claimant behind him. Due to the impact, claimant fell down and his left leg came under the left front tyre of the bus resulting into composite fracture of his left leg and therefore it was amputated. The bus is owned by respondent No. 2 and stood insured with respondent No. 3 Insurance Company.
5. The claim-petition has been contested by respondent Nos. 1 to 3 vide their separate written statements. Respondent No. 1 pleaded in his written statement that on 14.4.2000 he was driving Haryana Roadways bus bearing registration No. HR-37-1049 slowly on his left side of the road and was going from Jagadhri to Yamuna Nagar and at about 11.30a.m., the bus reached near Kanhaya Chowk, at that time the claimant who was also going to Yamuna Nagar, all of a sudden turned his cycle without seeing behind and so despite the fact that he (respondent No. 1) tried his best to avoid the accident by applying brake to the bus but in vain and the bumper of the bus struck behind the cycle of the claimant and so he fell down on the road and received injuries. Therefore, no accident had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving by respondent No. 1. Other allegations contained in the claim petition have been denied. Similar stand was taken by respondent No. 2 in his written statement. However, respondent No. 3 alleged that driver of bus bearing registration No. HR-37-1049 was not having driving licence and the bus was not validly insured with it. Denying other averments respondent prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
6. No rejoinder was filed. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-
"1. Whether the accident resulting into injuries was caused due to rash and negligent driving of bus No. HR-37-1049 by respondent No. 1.? OPP
2. Whether the claimant is entitled to the compensation. If so how much and from whom? OPP
3. Relief."
7. The Tribunal, after assessing the testimony of the witnesses partly accepted the claim petition and allowed as aforesaid.
8. Feeling dissatisfied with the above said Award dated 04.01.2002, the Insurance Company has directed the present appeal.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through
