IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
J.J. MUNIR, J.
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Ran Vijay Singh and Another - Respondents
First Appeal From Order No. 4163 Of 2011
Decided On : 24-11-2023
Motor Accident Claim - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 66(3)(h) - Section 64-VB of the Insurance Act, 1938 - The court held that the school bus was not exempt from the requirement of holding a permit and the insurers would be liable to indemnify. The court also found that the driver of the offending vehicle operated it without a valid license, and the insurers cannot be held bound by terms of the policy. The 'pay and recover' principle was invoked to safeguard the interest of the claimant and extend the benefit of the social welfare legislation.
Fact of the Case:
The claimant was hit by a school bus while jogging, leading to serious injuries. The claimant filed a claim petition seeking compensation for the injuries sustained.
Finding of the Court:
The court found in favor of the claimant, holding the insurers liable to indemnify and awarding compensation of Rs.5,34,048/- with simple interest @ 6% per annum.
Issues: The issues included determining the liability of the insurers, the validity of the driving license, and the entitlement of the claimant to compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the school bus was not exempt from the requirement of holding a permit and the insurers would be liable to indemnify. It also found that the driver of the offending vehicle operated it without a valid license, invoking the 'pay and recover' principle to safeguard the interest of the claimant.
Final Decision: The appeal succeeded in part, and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was modified, making it recoverable from the insurers by the claimant, who would then be at liberty to recover it from the owners and the driver, jointly and severally.
JUDGMENT :
(J.J. Munir, J.)
1. This is an appeal by the Insurance Company, arising out of a judgment and award passed by Mr. Arun Prakash, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.2, Kanpur Nagar in Claim Petition No.575 of 2009, dated 14.09.2011, partly allowing the claim petition.
2. The facts giving rise to the motor accident claim, subject matter of this appeal, are:
On December, the 31st, 2008 between 6:00-7:00 in the morning hours, Ran Vijay Singh, the claimant was jogging down the Ramaipur Bharu Shahpur Majhawan Road. He was jogging on the side of the road. He was accompanied by Vinod Singh, a native of his village. A school bus, bearing Registration No. UP-53T-3894 approached from the Ramaipur side, driven at a high speed and negligently. The bus hit the claimant, leading him to sustain multiple fractures to his right lower limb, besides injury to other parts of his body. According to the claimant, he had passed his B.Sc. Examination in the year 2007, but being unemployed, had purchased milch cattle and was into the business of supplying milk. Apart from earning his livelihood this way, he would prepare to write various competitive examinations, leading to a possible employment.
3. After the accident, the claimant was taken to the Primary Health Centre Bidhnoo. Since his condition was serious, he was referred to the Regency Hospital, where he was admitted on 04.01.2009. After discharge, he was treated as an outdoor patient by Dr. Nadeem Faruqui for a few months. The claimant says that he has become handicapped because of the injury to his right lower limb. He has become non-ambulatory and cannot move about. His business of supplying milk is ruined. He cannot look after his milch cattle nor can he go to Ramaipur or the town to sell milk. Before the accident, he had an income of Rs.9000/-per mensem. For the purpose of treatment, besides whatever it involved in running about and eating a nourishing diet, he had to spend a sum of Rs.2 lacs approximately. The physical handicap, that has followed the accident, has given him extreme mental pain, besides physical, which are life long. It is impossible to compensate the injury.
4. An FIR regarding the accident was got lodged by the claimant's father at P.S. Bidhnoo. This claim petition was instituted by Ran Vijay Singh before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ The District Judge on 20.05.2009 and assigned to the Additional District Judge, Court No.2, Kanpur Nagar on 21.05.2009. Ran Vijay Singh, the sole claimant, who is respondent No.1 to this appeal, shall hereinafter be called 'the claimant'. Param Hans Ram Mangal Das Inter College, Sawayajpur, Narwal, District Kanpur Nagar, who are owners of the offending bus, were arrayed as opposite party No.1 to the claim petition and are impleaded as respondent No.2 to this appeal. They shall hereinafter be referred to as 'the owners'.
5. The offending vehicle was insured with the New India Assurance Company Limited, Civil Lines, Kanpur Nagar. They were arrayed as opposite party No.2 to the claim petition and are the appellants here. The appellant, Insurance Company aforesaid, shall hereinafter be called 'the insurers'.
6. A written statement was filed on behalf the owners on 25.11.2009, signed and verified by one Santosh Kumar Dwivedi, a person authorized on behalf of the owners to sign and verify pleadings. The owners generally denied the claimant's case and pleaded that the accident never happened. It was said that for the said reason, the income, dependency and other facts are all irrelevant and set up to establish a hefty claim. The owners also denied the registration of any criminal case against the bus driver. They also pleaded that even if it has been registered with the Police by resort to manipulation, the same is without basis. The owners also denied that their bus ever plied on the route indicated or the place where the accident occurred. It was never involved in the accident in question. Their f
Amrit Paul Singh and another v. TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. and others
Pappu and others v. Vinod Kumar Lamba and another
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Challa Upendra Rao
AI
In negligence claims under the Motor Vehicles Act, the standard of proof is based on preponderance of probabilities; insurers cannot avoid liability for permit breaches if the vehicle was used in an ....
The insurance company must prove any breach of policy conditions to avoid liability for compensation claims.
Liability of the insurance company in case of violation of R.T.O. rules and breach of permit conditions
An insurer must indemnify third parties for liabilities despite policy violations, but retains the right to recover payments from the vehicle owner.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.