SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(UK) 8

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
S.K. MISHRA, J.
National Insurance Company Limited. - Appellant
Versus
Smt. Suneeta Devi and others - Respondents
A.O. No. 157 OF 2009
Decided on : 23-03-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Prabhat Pandey, adv
For the Respondent: Mr. Pankaj Purohit, learned counsel.

The liability of the Insurance Company under a comprehensive/package policy is not limited to a specific amount, and the appellate court has the power to enhance compensation even in the absence of an appeal, cross appeal, or cross objection.

Headnote:

Insurance Company - Motor Accident Claims - Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Surendra Nath Loomba (2012) 13 SCC 792, National Insurance Company Limited vs. Balakrishnan and another (2013) 1 SCC 731, United India Insurance Company Limited, Shimla vs. Tilak Singh and others (2006) 4 SCC 404 - The court discussed the liability of the Insurance Company under a comprehensive/package policy and the power of the appellate court to enhance compensation. The judgment relied on various precedents to establish that the liability of the Insurance Company is not limited to Rs. 2 lacs and that the appellate court has the power to enhance compensation even in the absence of an appeal, cross appeal, or cross objection.

Fact of the Case:

The deceased, Pradeep Kumar, met with a fatal accident while driving his car. His family filed a claim for compensation, which was initially granted at Rs. 8,41,820/- by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The Insurance Company appealed against the decision, arguing that its liability was limited to Rs. 2 lacs only.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the Insurance Company's liability was not limited to Rs. 2 lacs and that the appellate court had the power to enhance compensation even in the absence of an appeal, cross appeal, or cross objection. The court also recalculated the compensation to be Rs. 20,85,000/- and directed the Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs. 12,43,180, along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of institution of the appeal.

Issues: The issues included the liability of the Insurance Company, the power of the appellate court to enhance compensation, and the adequacy of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

Ratio Decidendi: The court established that the liability of the Insurance Company was not limited to Rs. 2 lacs and that the appellate court had the power to enhance compensation even in the absence of an appeal, cross appeal, or cross objection. The court also recalculated the compensation based on legal principles and precedents.

Final Decision: The appeal filed by the Insurance Company was dismissed, and the total compensation calculated and directed to be paid by the Insurance Company to the respondents was increased to Rs. 20,85,000/-. The appellant Insurance Company was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 12,43,180, along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of institution of the appeal.

JUDGMENT :

In this case, the respondent National Insurance Company Limited has assailed the judgment dated 26.02.2019 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chamoli in MACP No.15 of 2008 Smt. Suneeta Devi and others vs. National Insurance Company Limited, whereby the learned Tribunal directed the present appellant, i.e., respondent No. 1 before the Tribunal to pay a sum of Rs. 8,41,820/-, along with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of institution of the petition.

2. Briefly stated, the case of the claimants is that late Pradeep Kumar alias Pradeep Chandra Dhondiyal was the owner of Alto Car No. U.A.-07U-5241. He was proceeding by driving it himself on 31.01.2008 towards Gopeshwar and at about 06:00 PM, the said Car, because of some technical fault, met with an accident at Ziro Bend within the jurisdiction of Gopeshwar Police Station. As a result of the accident, it fell inside a gorge. In that accident, late Pradeep Kumar alias Pradeep Chandra Dhondiyal sustained severe injuries and died. At the time of the accident, the deceased was 34 years’ old. He was an employee in the Chief Development Office, Gopeshwar (Prasar Prashikshan Kendra), and was getting a sum of Rs. 18,000/- per month as salary. As a result of his death, his wife Suneeta Devi became widow, his children, namely petitioner Nos. 2, 3 and 4, became orphan. The mother of the deceased has also been impleaded as petitioner No. 5 in the application. Therefore, the petitioners have claimed a sum of Rs. 32,15,000.00 as compensation from the opposite party.

3. The opposite party, i.e. the appellant before us, National Insurance Company Limited filed its written statements generally denying the pleas raised by the petitioners, and further stated that the deceased had no valid driving licence, permit, registration and fitness certificate at the time of accident. Therefore, as per the terms and conditions, the National Insurance Company Limited/the opposite party is not liable to pay any compensation.

4. On such pleadings, the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chamoli cast three issues relating to the accident caused by technical fault, violation of terms and conditions of the insurance contract, if any, and the relief or compensation that the petitioners are entitled to.

5. The petitioner No. 1 examined herself as PW-1 and filed twelve documents. The opposite party did not adduce oral evidence but filed ten documents.

6. While deciding Issue No. 1, the learned Tribunal held that the accident took place due to mechanical failure of the vehicle, and decided it in favour of the petitioners. While deciding Issue No. 2, the learned Tribunal also held that the vehicle was properly registered and the deceased had a valid driving licence, and was duly insured with the Insurance Company, i.e. the appellant. The Issue No. 2 was also decided in favour of the petitioners. While deciding Issue No. 3, a contention was raised by the Insurance Company that the vehicle was being driven by the deceased himself, hence no compensation can be granted to his legal heirs. Alternatively, it was argued that the maximum coverage of the Insurance Company is upto Rs. 2 lacs as per the Company. However, the learned Tribunal held at Paragraph-20 that from the Insurance cover note, it is apparent that the vehicle was insured for personal accident and the owner has paid Compulsory Personal Accident Cover Premium of Rs. 100, and he has also paid Additional Personal Accident Cover Premium of Rs. 250/- for five persons; as per the insurance cover note, the limited liability is for personal accident cover premium to owner and driver, and the risk for owner and driver is Rs. 2 lacs, and in Column-B, the premium for five persons has also been paid by deceased Pradeep Kumar; and therefore, without any proper explanation regarding aforementioned limited liability, the claimants are entitled to get compensation due to the death of deceased Pradeep Kumar in a motor accident

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top