Back
2019 Supreme(Sikk) 3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM, GANGTOK
BHASKAR RAJ PRADHAN, J.
The Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Mrs. Dil Kumari Subba, & Ors. - Respondents
MAC Appeal No. 03 of 2018
Decided On : 10-06-2019
For the Appellant :Mr. Thupden Gyatso Bhutia, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. N. Rai, Senior Advocate with Ms. Sudha Sewa and Mr. Nima Tshering Sherpa, Advocates, Mr. Ajay Rahti, Mr. Rahul Rathi, Ms. Phurba Diki Sherpa and Ms. Renuka Chhetri, Advocates
The main legal point established is the judicial notice of public documents, such as income certificates issued by public officers, and the requirement for evidence to prove a breach of insurance policy conditions.
Headnote:
Insurance - Motor Accident Claims - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 279, Section 304A - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 146 - Sikkim Government Gazette Notification No.25/Home/2007 - Judicial Notice of Public Documents - Compensation for Motor Accident - Validity of Insurance Policy - Unauthorized Use of Vehicle
Fact of the Case:
The appeal involves a motor accident claim where the deceased was traveling in a vehicle that fell off a cliff, resulting in his death. The insurance company, the appellant, contested the compensation claim, arguing the income certificate of the deceased was not proved and that the driver had used the vehicle without authorization.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accident occurred as per the evidence presented, and the deceased was entitled to compensation as the vehicle was duly insured. The court also held that the income certificate, issued by a Block Development Officer, was a public document and could be judicially noticed. The court rejected the appellant's argument regarding the unauthorized use of the vehicle, as no evidence of a breach of insurance policy conditions was presented.
Issues: Validity of income certificate, authorization of vehicle use, breach of insurance policy conditions
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the Sikkim Government Gazette Notification and judicial notice of public documents to establish the validity of the income certificate. It also emphasized the lack of evidence to prove a breach of insurance policy conditions regarding the unauthorized use of the vehicle.
Final Decision: The court upheld the judgment and award passed by the tribunal, affirming the entitlement of the claimants to compensation.
JUDGMENT :
Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, J.
1. The Appellant is the Insurance Company. It was Opposite Party no.2 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Tribunal). The Respondent no.1 and Respondent no.2 are the Claimant no.1 i.e. the wife of the deceased-Pem Tshering Lepcha who succumbed due to the accident and the Claimant no.2 i.e. the minor daughter of the deceased and the Claimant no.1. The Respondent no.3 is the owner of the vehicle which met with the accident. The present appeal had been preferred by the Appellant dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and the award both dated 27.11.2017 passed by the learned Tribunal.
2. The quantum of the award passed by the learned Tribunal is not in dispute. The judgment of the learned Tribunal directing the Appellant to pay the compensation is challenged. The income certificate of the deceased (exhibit-11) dated 02.09.2016 having not been proved by the Block Development Officer who issued it, is contested. The Appellant also submits that the Respondent no.3 has categorically stated that the driver had not taken due permission/authorisation from him before taking the said vehicle. Thus, it is argued the Appellant could not be saddled with the compensation.
3. Heard Mr. Thupden Gyatso Bhutia, learned Counsel for the Appellant, Mr. N. Rai, learned Senior Counsel for Respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. Ajay Rahti, learned Counsel for Respondent no.3.
4. On the intervening night of the incident i.e. 13.04.2016 and 14.04.2016 the deceased was travelling along with other occupants in vehicle bearing registration no. SK-01-P-0466 (Estilo LXI Zen) from Marchak to Mangan, North Sikkim driven by its driver-late Gopal Chettri. When the vehicle reached Rangchang Bhir, Dikchu Singtam Road, East Sikkim it fell off the cliff resulting in the death of the deceased. The driver had a valid license issued by the Motor Vehicle Department. The vehicle was duly insured with the Appellant having a valid insurance policy no. 150608/31/16/6700000049 valid from 04.04.2016 to the midnight of 03.04.2017 covering the date of the accident.
5. The learned Tribunal relied upon the certificate of registration (exhibit-8) to hold that the vehicle was registered in the Motor Vehicle Division; tax was paid up to 22.06.2016 covering the date of the accident and that the Respondent no.3 was the owner of the said vehicle.
6. The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident had occurred on the said date on examining the certified copy of the First Information Report (FIR) dated 14.04.2016 (exhibit-2). The FIR was registered against the driver of the vehicle for rash driving on a public way (Section 279 Indian Penal Code, 1860) (IPC) and causing death by negligence (Section 304A IPC). The learned Tribunal examined the property seizure memo (exhibit-7) vide which the police seized the vehicle, its key and documents.
7. The inquest form (exhibit-4), dead body challan (exhibit-5), autopsy/post mortem report (exhibit-15), dead body handing and taking memo (exhibit-6), death certificate of the deceased (exhibit-13) satisfied the learned Tribunal regarding the death of the deceased due to the accident.
8. The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the collective appreciation of the testimony of Respondent no.1 and the exhibited documents clearly established that the accident occurred on the intervening night on 13.04.2016 and 14.04.2016 when the vehicle owned by the Respondent no.3 and driven by the driver in which the deceased was travelling fell off the cliff resulting in the death of the deceased, one Dipak Chettri and the driver.
9. The learned Tribunal was aware that Respondent no.1 was not travelling in the vehicle at the relevant time although she deposed that the driver had driven the vehicle rash and negligently. However, the learned Tribunal concluded that the driver had driven the vehicle rash and negligently after examining the FIR and the charge-sheet (exhibit-18) implicating him under Section 279 and 304A of the I
