SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2015 Supreme(P&H) 1889

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Surinder Gupta, J.
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Surinder and Others – Respondent
FAO No. 4535 of 2013
Decided On : 14-10-2015

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :S.S. Sidhu, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Surinder Dagar, Advocate.

The main legal point established in the judgment is the liability of the insurance company to pay compensation and its recovery rights against the owner and driver of the offending vehicle, based on the driver's license validity and the interpretation of relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act.

Headnote:

Insurance Company - Liability to pay compensation - Motor Vehicles Act - Section 149(2)(a)(i)(a), Section 2(14) - The court discussed the liability of the insurance company to pay compensation and its recovery rights against the owner and driver of the offending vehicle. It referenced and discussed the Motor Vehicles Act, particularly Section 149(2)(a)(i)(a) and Section 2(14), and highlighted the interpretations provided by the Apex Court in relevant cases such as Fahim Ahmad v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Nagashetty v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. The court emphasized the need for the insurance company to prove the breach of conditions of the insurance policy and the validity of the driver's license in the context of the tractor being attached with a trolley, and concluded that the insurance company was liable to pay the compensation.

Fact of the Case:

The case involved an accident where a tractor-trolley hit a motorcycle, resulting in the death of the motorcycle rider. The insurance company denied liability based on the driver not having a valid license and the tractor being attached with a trolley.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the insurance company was liable to pay the compensation jointly and severally with the owner and driver of the offending vehicle, rejecting the insurance company's argument regarding the validity of the driver's license and the tractor being considered a transport vehicle.

Issues: The issues involved the liability of the insurance company to pay compensation and its recovery rights against the owner and driver of the offending vehicle, based on the driver's license validity and the tractor being attached with a trolley.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the interpretations provided by the Apex Court in relevant cases such as Fahim Ahmad v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Nagashetty v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. to determine the liability of the insurance company and emphasized the need for the insurance company to prove the breach of conditions of the insurance policy and the validity of the driver's license.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the court held that the insurance company was liable to pay the compensation jointly and severally with the owner and driver of the offending vehicle.

JUDGMENT :

Surinder Gupta, J.

Whether the Insurance Company can be absolved from its liability to pay the compensation amount or can it be allowed recovery rights against owner and driver of the offending vehicle, if the driver possessing licence for driving the tractor at the time of accident, was driving the tractor attached with trolley, is the short point which arises for consideration in this appeal.

2. As per the case of claimants, Shakuntla along with her nephews, Gulab Singh, Shiv Charan and Man Singh had gone to Sohna market on 14.07.2010 for purchasing some household articles. After purchasing the articles, she was returning from the market to her home with Gulab Singh on his motorcycle, which was being driven by Gulab Singh at a moderate speed on his left side. When they reached ahead of village Indri, tractor-trolley bearing No. HR-52-8879 (later referred to as 'the offending vehicle'), which was being driven by Hassu-respondent no. 1 (respondent no. 5 in this appeal), in a rash and negligent manner, came from backside and hit the motorcycle. With the impact Shakuntla fell down from the motorcycle and was run over by the tractor resulting in her death at the spot. She was 40 years of age and was doing embroidery and tailoring work and selling milk thereby earning Rs. 8000/- per month.

3. In the written statement filed by driver and owner of the offending vehicle the accident was denied. It was alleged that FIR No. 226 dated 14.07.2010 for this accident registered at Police Station Sohna, involving the offending vehicle and respondent no. 1, was false and frivolous. The tractor was, however, insured with respondent no. 3 (appellant), as such, if any liability for payment of compensation is found, the same shall be of the Insurance Company.

4. In the separate written statement filed by the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., a plea was taken that driver of the offending vehicle i.e. respondent no. 1 was not having valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident, as such, the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the insured due to the violation of terms and conditions of the Insurance Company. It was also denied that the offending vehicle was insured with respondent no. 3-Insurance Company. Admitting the accident, it was alleged that the same was caused due to sole negligence of driver of the motorcycle.

5. The Tribunal relied upon the statement of PW-2 Gulab Singh, that the accident had taken place when the offending vehicle hit his motorcycle from behind, resulting in death of Shakuntla the deceased. The compensation of Rs. 7,60,000/- was assessed and discarding the plea of Insurance Company (appellant) that respondent no. 2-owner of the offending vehicle has violated the terms and conditions of insurance policy, the liability was fastened on the Insurance Company to pay the compensation jointly and severally with respondents no. 1 and 2.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that admittedly the tractor which caused the accident was attached with trolley. Respondent no. 1 was having the driving licence, Ex. P-2, only to drive the tractor. Once the tractor is attached with trailer it becomes a transport vehicle. Respondent no. 1-Hassu was not authorised to drive a transport vehicle, as such, his driving licence, Ex. P-2, was not a legal and valid one and the Insurance Company, for the breach of terms of insurance policy, is entitled to recover the compensation amount paid by it from owner of the vehicle.

7. To find answer to the above argument of learned counsel for the appellant, observations of Apex Court in paras 5 and 7 in case of Fahim Ahmad and others v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and others, 2015 (1) SCC (Civil) 258 are relevant and are reproduced as under:-

"5. A perusal of the records shows that, at the time of the accident, a trolley was attached with the tractor, which was carrying sand for the purpose of construction of underground tank near the farm land for irrigation purposes. Ho













Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top