Back
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
P. V. Dixit, C. J. and K. L. Pandey, J.
GYARSILAL JAGANNATHPRASAD MOR - Appellant
Versus
PANDIT SITACHARAN DUBEY - Respondents
First Appeal 95 Of 1960
Decided On : 11/15/1962
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - SECTION 96(2) - INSURANCE POLICY - TRANSFER OF POLICY - LIABILITY OF INSURANCE COMPANY - NEGLIGENCE - LIABILITY OF OWNER OF VEHICLE - AGENCY OR SERVANT.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, a lawyer, was injured in a motor accident caused by the negligent driving of the defendant's car. The defendant claimed that the car was being driven by his employee, Amarsingh, for his own purpose, and that the insurance policy issued by the company covered the risk of the car being driven by any person holding a valid license. The insurance company denied liability, claiming that it was never informed about the transfer of the car and that the policy was not assigned to the defendant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accident was caused by the negligence of Amarsingh, who was driving the car as the agent or servant of the defendant. The court also found that the insurance policy had been transferred to the defendant and that the company was liable to pay the damages awarded to the plaintiff.
Issues: 1. Whether the accident was caused by the negligence of Amarsingh, the driver of the defendant's car? 2. Whether Amarsingh was driving the car as the agent or servant of the defendant? 3. Whether the insurance policy issued by the company was transferred to the defendant? 4. Whether the insurance company was liable to pay the damages awarded to the plaintiff?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the accident was caused by the negligence of Amarsingh, who was driving the car as the agent or servant of the defendant. The court relied on the evidence of the plaintiff, his nephew, and Mr. Trott, who arrived at the scene of the accident soon after it occurred. The court also found that Amarsingh was not in the employment of the defendant as a driver and that he was driving the car for his own purpose. 2. The court held that Amarsingh was driving the car as the agent or servant of the defendant, based on the presumption that at the time of the accident, the car was being driven by Amarsingh as an agent or servant of the defendant. The court found that the defendant was the owner of the car and that it was being driven by Amarsingh. The court also found that the defendant had lent the car to Amarsingh for being used wholly for Amarsingh's purpose, which in itself was sufficient to raise a presumption that at the time of the accident, the car was being driven by Amarsingh as an agent or servant of the defendant. 3. The court held that the insurance policy had been transferred to the defendant, based on the evidence that Dr. Joshi handed over the insurance policy to the defendant when he sold the car and that the policy was thereafter sent to the company by the defendant with a letter to transfer the policy in his favor. The court also found that the company did not give any intimation to the registering authority or to the defendant that the policy had been canceled and did not even produce the policy, the certificate of insurance, and the Register of policies. 4. The court held that the insurance company was liable to pay the damages awarded to the plaintiff, based on the finding that the policy had been transferred to the defendant and that the company was liable to pay the damages awarded to the plaintiff.
Final Decision: The court dismissed both appeals and directed the appellant in each case to pay the costs of the respondent-plaintiff.
( 1 ) THIS judgment will also govern, the disposal of First Appeal No. 96 of 1960.
( 2 ) THESE are two appeals from a judgment of the Additional District Judge of balaghat giving to the plaintiff-respondent Pandit Sita Charan Dubey a decree for rs. 30,000/- as damages for injuries caused to him in a motor-car accident.
( 3 ) THE plaintiff, who on the date of the institution of the suit was about 76 years of age, has been practising as a lawyer since 1902. He became an advocate of the nagpur High Court in 1936 and practised in that Court till 1956 until the establishment of this Court at Jabalpur. He is now an advocate of this Court and an advocate of the Supreme Court also. He was a member of the Rajya Sabha from 1952 to 1954. His case was that in March, 1956 he was required to go from nagpur to Baihar in Balaghat district; and that when he was doing the return journey on the morning of 1st April, 1956 in a jeep car, which had been placed at his disposal by a friend of his, he was injured in a collision between the jeep car and a Ford Touring car which was registered in the name of the defendant-appellant Gyarsilal and which was being driven by the respondent-Amersingh, an employee of Gyarsilal. The plaintiff alleged that the accident occurred when the jeepwas negotiating a bend at mile 10. 3 on the Ghat section of Baihar-Balaghat road; that the jeep was being driven carefully on the correct side of the road, that is to say, close to the left of the road; that it was proceeding at a speed of about 15 miles per hour and the driver blew the horn before negotiating the bend; that at that time the car driven by Amersingh suddenly came up the hill without any warning and at a great speed; that as it was being driven rashly and negligently on the wrong side oi the road, it collided with the jeep car in which he was travelling; and that he was severely injured in this collision and also became unconscious. The plaintiff further stated that in this collision his right hip joint was dislocated and its socket fractured; that he received abrasions on his forehead and left knee; that the upper denture of his teeth was broken and its broken ends entered the gums and upper palate causing profuse bleeding from the mouth; and that he received severe injuries on the chest as well as on the right shoulder and the lower part of the spinal column. According to the plaintiff, one Mr. Trott of the bharvelli mines of Balaghat happened to arrive in his car at the scene of the accident soon after it occurred. Mr. Trott removed the plaintiff in his own car to balaghat hospital. He was then taken to the Medical College Hospital, Nagpur, and treated for his injuries. The plaintiff was put in plaster with both his feet suspended in the air by pullies with weights attached. He had to remain in that condition in the hospital for fourteen days. Thereafter he was removed to his son's residence who was then the Superintendent of the Mental Hospital, Nagpur. He was kept in the same condition for nearlv twelve weeks at his son's residence. As to the effect of these injuries on his physical and mental capacity, the plaintiff's allegations in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the plaint are : "even in July, 1956 he suffered from acute physical agony and mental shock and distress. For a number of weeks he suffered from giddiness, even while turning his head in bed. While trying to sit he suffered intense pain. His muscles have been rendered stiff and still require continuous massaging. The right leg has become thin and emaciated and is unable to support the weight of the body which compels the use of crutches even now. Owing to non-repair and infirmness of the musculature all about the hip area, he has been warned by the doctors against the risk of the recurrence of displacement and has to move about with great caution and under much pain. There has now occurred obliteration of the joint space resulting in stiffening of the hip joint and osteo artheritic changes h
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
