Back
2014 Supreme(Sikk) 62
HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM : GANGTOK
S.P. WANGDI, J.
The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited - Appellant
versus
Mr. Biresh Giri - Respondents-Claimants
Mr. Atikur Rahman - Respondent
S.B. MAC App. No.07 of 2014
S.B. MAC App. No.08 of 2014
Decided on: 15-09-2014
For Appellant:Ms. Navtara Sarda, Advocate.
For Respondents No.1 to 4:Mr. Ajay Rathi, Mr. Rahul Rathi and Ms. Pema Wongmu Bhutia, Advocates.
For Respondent No.5:Mr. Zangpo Sherpa, Advocate as Legal Aid Counsel with Mr. Dewen Sharma Luitel, Advocate.
The judgment establishes the principle that a willful breach by the insured is required for the insurance company to avoid liability under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Headnote:
Insurance - Motor Vehicle Accident - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 3, 4, 5, 149 - Central Motor Vehicle Rule, 1989 - [SKANDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. KOKILABEN CHANDRAVADAN AND OTHERS : (1987) 2 SCC 654, SOHAN LAL PASSI VS. P. SESH REDDY AND OTHERS : (1996) 5 SCC 21] - The judgment discusses the import of the insurance policy term regarding the eligibility of the driver and the liability of the insurance company. It interprets the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Central Motor Vehicle Rule, 1989, emphasizing the requirement of willful breach for the insurance company to avoid liability. The court's decision is influenced by the established legal principles and the burden of proof on the insurance company.
Fact of the Case:
Deceased persons boarded a car driven by a juvenile, leading to a fatal accident. The insurance company contested the claims, arguing that the driver was a minor and not eligible to hold a valid driving license.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the evidence of the minor driver's unauthorized use of the vehicle keys without the owner's knowledge to be reliable, exonerating the owner from liability. It emphasized the requirement of willful breach for the insurance company to avoid liability.
Issues: The issues involved the eligibility of the driver, the liability of the insurance company, and the interpretation of the insurance policy term.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the insurance company must establish a willful breach by the insured to avoid liability. It relied on established legal principles and the burden of proof on the insurance company.
Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed, and the insurance company was directed to pay the compensation with accrued interest within 30 days.
Wangdi, J.
1. By these Appeals, the Appellant-Insurance Company seeks to assail the impugned judgments dated 27-12-2013 and dated 21-12-2013 in MACT Case No.21 of 2012 and MACT Case No.22 of 2012 respectively passed by the Learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, East and North Sikkim at Gangtok (in short the “Learned Claims Tribunal”), by which the Respondents-Claimants have been awarded compensation with interest to be paid by the Appellant-Insurance Company.
2. These Appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment as the issues involved in both the cases are the same having arisen from the same motor vehicle accident when driven by the same driver in which the deceased persons had died.
3. In MAC App. No.7 of 2014, the Respondents No.1 and 2 are the parents of the deceased Mardhoj Giri while Respondents No.3 and 4 are his brothers (Respondent No.4 has been wrongly mentioned as daughter in the cause title). Similarly, in MAC App. No.8 of 2014, the Respondents No.1 and 2 are the parents of the deceased Hari Mali while Respondents No.3 to 6 are his brothers.
4(i). The facts as would be material for disposal of these Appeals are that deceased Mardhoj Giri and Hari Mali had boarded a Hyundai Santro Car bearing registration number SK 07 TR 5909 at Singtam, belonging to Atikur Rahman, Respondent No.5 in MAC App. No.07 of 2014 and Respondent No.7 in MAC App. No.08 of 2014, driven by his brother Sheik Masoom, a juvenile and headed towards Rangpo in the early morning of 07-12-2011 at about 6 a.m. As they reached Bardang, 19th Mile, falling under the jurisdiction of Singtam Police Station, the vehicle fell off the road into the river Teesta causing the death of these two persons on the spot.
(ii) Since the vehicle was insured with the Appellant-Insurance Company, Claim Petitions were filed before the Learned Claims Tribunal by the dependants of the deceased persons separately which were registered as MACT Case No.21 of 2012 (MAC App. No.07 of 2014 in the present Appeal) and MACT Case No.22 of 2012 (MAC App. No.08 of 2014 in the present Appeal).
(iii) The Appellant-Insurance Company contested the claims by filing a written objection and denied its liability on all accounts. Upon considerations of the respective pleadings, the Learned Claims Tribunal framed four identical issues in both the cases which are reproduced below:-
(i) Whether the vehicle bearing No.SK-07/TR/5909 was insured with the O.P. No.1 at the time of the accident? (Onus on Claimants)
(ii) Whether the deceased was a third party? (Onus on Claimants)
(iii) Whether the said vehicle was driven by a qualified driver or not at the time of the accident? (Onus on Claimants)
(iv) Whether the Claimants are entitled to the compensation claimed along with interest from the date of filing of the claim petition and, if so, who is liable to pay the same? (Onus on Claimants)
(iv) By the impugned judgment, the Learned Claims Tribunal decided all issues against the Appellant-Insurance Company and allowed compensation of Rs.6,18,500/-in MACT Case No.21 of 2012 (MAC App. No.07 of 2014 in the present Appeal) and Rs. 5,46,500/-in MACT Case No.22 of 2012 (MAC App. No.08 of 2014 in the present Appeal) respectively in favour of the Respondents-Claimants.
5(i). It is relevant to note that in these Appeals the Appellant-Insurance Company has confined their challenge only in respect of the findings on issue no.(iii) and, therefore, we may not delay ourselves on the rest.
(ii) As would appear from issue no.(iii) reproduced above, the question that arose for determination was the import of the term of the insurance policy which protected the Appellant-Company from the liability of payment under the insurance cover which prescribed that –
“Persons or Class of Persons entitled to driver:
Any person including Insured provided that a person driving holds an effective driving licence at the time of the accident and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a licence. Provide
