Back
2014 Supreme(All) 3784
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Anil Kumar, J.
New India Assurance Company Ltd. and Another - Appellant
Versus
Shashi Shukla and Others - Respondent
First Appeal From Order No. 129 of 2003
Decided On : 16-12-2014
For the Appellant :Rajesh Nath, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Akhilesh Chandra and Akhilesh Chauhan, Advocates.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that insurance companies must prove the insured's negligence and fundamental breach of policy conditions regarding the use of vehicles by a duly licensed driver to avoid liability.
Headnote:
Insurance - Motor Accident Claim - Insurance Act, 1938 - Section 64 V.B., Section 149(2) - The court discussed the issues of whether the accident was due to rash and negligent driving, whether the vehicle was insured, and whether the driver had a valid license. The court also highlighted the legal principles established by the Supreme Court regarding the defenses available to insurance companies in cases of deficiencies in driving licenses.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a motor accident claim where the claimants sought compensation for the death of a young man in a road accident. The New India Assurance Company Ltd. challenged the judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, arguing that the vehicle was used for professional and commercial purposes, thus breaching the insurance policy.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle, and the vehicle was insured with the New India Assurance Company Ltd. The court also determined that the driver possessed a valid driving license and the requisite documents for the vehicle were valid. The court dismissed the appeal, stating that the Insurance Company failed to prove that the vehicle was used in contravention to the terms of the insurance policy.
Issues: The issues included determining the cause of the accident, the insurance status of the vehicle, the validity of the driver's license, and the amount of compensation the claimants were entitled to receive.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the legal principles established by the Supreme Court, emphasizing that the absence, fake, or invalid driving license or disqualification of the driver at the relevant time are not in themselves defenses available to the insurer. The insurer must prove that the insured was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care in fulfilling the policy conditions regarding the use of vehicles by a duly licensed driver.
Final Decision: The appeal lacked merit and was dismissed by the court.
Anil Kumar, J.
Matter is taken in the revised cause list.
2. None present on behalf of the respondents.
3. Heard Sri Rajesh Nath, learned counsel for appellant and perused the record.
4. Aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 30.11.2002 passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/VI Additional District Judge, Pratapgarh, in M.A.C.P. No. 51 of 1997 (Smt. Shashi Shukla and others Vs. Devendra Pratap Singh and another), present appeal has been filed by the New India Assurance company Limited.
5. Facts in brief of the present case are that in an accident which took place on 19.04.1997 at about 5.30 p.m. on Lucknow Varanasi Road at Rajapur within the Police Station Raniganj, District Pratapgarh, Sri Subhash Chandra @ Subhash Kumar Shukla has died. In view of the said facts, a claim petition has been filed by the claimants inter alia stating therein that Sri Subhash Chandra @ Subhash Kumar Shukia (deceased) who was young man of 25 years of age doing business of supplying pump parts and pumping sets in several stores at District Pratapgarh and Sultanpur, earning Rs. 3500/- per month.
6. It is further pleaded in the claim petition that the deceased was a brilliant scholar and passed his High School Examination in 1st Division and Intermediate in good 2nd Division and I.T.I. Course also completed, while he was going to Patti to receive prices of spare parts delivered by him to different stores of Patti and thereafter he came to Raniganj from Patti and at Raniganj he was sitting in the Jeep No. M.P. 19 A 5002 for Prithviganj. The vehicle in question was in excessive speed and was being driven by its driver rashly and negligently, when the Jeep was beyond its control turned to turtle on road at Rajapur, as a result the deceased sustained grievous injury resulted into his death on the spot. The said accident has took place due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle.
7. In the said claim petition, the New India Assurance Company Limited who was impleaded as respondent has filed its written statement taking the plea that the accident has not so been caused as alleged in the petition. The FIR, Chargesheet, site plan file from T.E. Report, post mortem report and other relevant documents pertaining to the alleged accident has not been filed at the time of preferring the claim petition and in absence of these documents the petition is liable to be dismissed. The Insurance Company further denied the insurance of the alleged vehicle which’ is involved in the accident, however, the Insurance Company reserves right to verify the policy in compliance of Section 64 V.B. of the Insurance Act and the liability can be justified under the terms and conditions of the policy contract. The Tribunal on the basis of the material facts and evidence on record allowed the claim petition thereby awarding a compensation of Rs. 2,53,000/- with 9% interest per annum to be realized from Insurance Company from the date of filing of the petition and shall be distributed in the manner as mentioned therein.
8. Sri Rajesh Nath, learned counsel appearing on behalf of New India Assurance Company Ltd. while challenging the impugned judgment submits that the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal has not considered that the vehicle was used as professional and commercial purposes, so there is a breach of the conditions of the terms of the insurance policy, so the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation.
9. It is further submitted by Sri Rajesh Nath, learned counsel appearing on behalf of New India Assurance Company Ltd. that Motor Accident Claim Tribunal has committed manifest error in law in not considering statement of D.W.1/Devenra Pratap Singh, the owner of the vehicle in question who has categorically admitted in cross examination specifically stated that he is having P.C.O. and not having the property and part he has got financed the Jeep in question and he used to managed the expenditure of the Jeep from the said jeep in question itself, so, impugned judgme
