Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
B.C. KANDPAL, J.
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Shristi Rawat And Others - Respondent
Decided on : 26-03-2008
The judgment established the liability of the insurance company despite the breach of the insurance policy terms, citing legal provisions and interpretations from previous judgments.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act - Compensation - 173 - [Suchita Rawat v. Dilbar Singh Rawat] - [Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 173] - The court discussed the issues related to the death of Suchita Rawat due to a road accident, insurance coverage of the vehicle, validity of the driver's license, and violation of the insurance policy terms. The court referred to the insurance policy, registration certificate, and driving license to determine the liability of the insurance company and the driver. The court also cited legal provisions and interpretations from previous judgments to establish the insurer's liability despite the breach of the insurance policy terms.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the death of Suchita Rawat in a road accident and a claim for compensation by the legal heirs of the deceased. The tribunal awarded compensation in favor of the claimants, which was challenged by the appellant insurance company.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the driver was holding a valid driving license, the vehicle was insured, and the registration certificate and insurance policy were in order. The court also upheld the tribunal's decision to award compensation based on the deceased's salary certificate and age, adopting the multiplier of 17 as per the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Issues: The issues included the cause of Suchita Rawat's death, insurance coverage of the vehicle, validity of the driver's license, violation of the insurance policy terms, and the amount of compensation entitled to the claimants.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the evidence and legal provisions to determine the liability of the insurance company and the driver, citing previous judgments to establish the insurer's liability despite the breach of the insurance policy terms. The court also considered the deceased's salary certificate and age to calculate the compensation amount.
Final Decision: The appeal and cross-appeal were dismissed, and the amount of compensation awarded by the tribunal was upheld as justified.
JUDGMENT :
B.C. Kandpal, J.-This appeal u/s 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been filed by the appellant against the judgment and order dated 11.10.2004 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Pauri Garhwal in M.A.C.P. No. 58 of 2002, Shristi Rawat v. Dilbar Singh Rawat, whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 8,86,400 as compensation in favour of the claimants.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 21.11.2001 Suchita Rawat was going to her school at Patti Gagwadsuen, District Pauri by jeep bearing No. UP 06-6185 at Lavali-Pauri Road, the jeep in question met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving by the driver. As a result of the said accident, Suchita Rawat sustained serious injuries. She was immediately taken to the District Hospital, Pauri where the doctor declared her dead. According to the claim petition, she was working as a teacher and used to earn Rs. 7,500 per month as salary. The claimants are the legal heirs of the deceased and filed claim petition to the tune of Rs. 20,00,000 before the Tribunal concerned.
3. A written statement was filed by the owner of the offending vehicle wherein the accident has been admitted. It has been submitted that in his absence, the driver of the vehicle in question Jaipal Singh Rana went to his in-laws (sasural) and handed over the vehicle to his brother, namely, Vimal Rana who caused the accident. It has been submitted that after getting the information about the accident, he went to Pauri. Vimal Rana was holding valid driving licence to drive a light motor vehicle. The offending vehicle was insured with Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. It has been submitted that Vimal Rana and insurance company are liable to pay the compensation, if any.
4. Vimal Rana, the driver in question has filed a written statement submitting therein that he was doing the duty of driver on the said vehicle and was having a valid driving licence. The accident in question had taken place due to technical fault. The vehicle was being driven very cautiously.
5. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. has filed the written statement and denied the accident. It has been submitted that the vehicle in question was being driven in contravention of the insurance policy. The vehicle was not insured and the driver in question was not having valid driving licence. The papers, such as, registration certificate, fitness certificate, permit, etc. with regard to the vehicle in question were not in order. The compensation claimed is in exaggeration. It has been submitted that the vehicle in question was carrying more passengers than its permitted capacity.
6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal has framed following issues:
(1) Whether Suchita Rawat died due to injuries in an accident on 21.11.2001 at about 4.15 p.m. near Balori on Lavali-Pauri Road on account of rash and negligent driving of jeep bearing registration No. UP 06-6185, as alleged in the claim petition?
(2) Whether the said jeep No. UP 06-6185 was insured with O.P. No. 3 at the time of accident?
(3) Whether the driver of said jeep No. UP 06-6185 was not holding valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident?
(4) Whether the said jeep No. UP 06-6185 was driven in violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy at the time of accident?
(5) What amount of compensation, if any, are the petitioner entitled and from whom?
7. After having considered the arguments advanced by the parties and perusing the evidence led by the parties, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 8,86,400 in favour of the claimant and against the insurance company vide judgment and order dated 11.10.2004.
8. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the appellant Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. preferred this appeal before this Court. The claimant-respondent also filed cross-appeal against the aforesaid judgment and award for enhancement of amount of compensation.
9. Heard Mr. T.A. Khan, learned Counsel for the appellant insurance company, Mr. P.C. Bisht,
