IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Sunita Yadav, J.
Shankerlal – Appellant
Versus
Manoj Jatav – Respondent
Misc. Appeal No. 5833 of 2018
Decided On : 01-04-2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. accident details leading to compensation claim (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. parties' arguments regarding liability and compensation (Para 5 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. court's reasoning on insurance liability (Para 10 , 12) |
| 4. court's directive on compensation payment (Para 13) |
| 5. disposition of the appeal (Para 14 , 15) |
JUDGMENT
1. This Misc. Appeal under Sec. 173(1) of MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 has been filed against the award dtd. 03/11/2018 passed by Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shivpuri (M.P.) in Claim Case No.09/2010, whereby the Insurance Company was exonerated from the liability of compensation.
2. The necessary facts for the disposal of the present appeal in short are that on 9/2/2010 deceased Vetal Singh was going to Kolaras from his village by the motor-cycle with his relative as they reached near of Gas Filer Godam A.B, Road PS Kolaras, at that time, one truck bearing registration No. HR-38-K-5255 which was coming rash and negligent manner dashed to the motor-cycle of deceased, due to which, he sustained grievous injuries in various ports of his body and died on spot.
3. First information report was lodged against the respondent No.1 driver of the offending vehicle in Police Station Kolaras Distt. Shivpuri (M.P.) registered at crime No.33/2010 under Ss. 337, 338, 304-A of IPC. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before competent court against respondent No.1/driver.
4. For claiming compensation due to death of deceased- Vetal Singh on account of accident, appellants filed claim petition before learned Claims Tribunal against all the respondents stating therein that deceased Vetal Singh was doing the work of security guard and was earning as sum of Rs.7500.00 per month by which he used to maintain himself and his family members. Because of death on account of accident, appellants deprived all the facilities being provided by deceased and also be provided in future. Hence, appellants claimed Rs.11, 95, 000.00 before learned Claims Tribunal against all the respondents.
5. The respondents no.1 and 2 and respondent No.3/Insurance company appeared before the learned claims tribunal and filed their written statement and dined each and every contents made in the claim petition. Insurance company further stated in its written statement that at the time of accident, vehicle was being used in violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy and without effective and valid driving license, Insurance Company prayed for dismissal the claim petition against the Insurance Company.
6. Claims Tribunal framed issues and recorded evidence produced by the parties and after hearing arguments, Tribunal allowed the claim petition vide award dtd. 12/01/2011 and awarded compensation a sum of Rs.5, 90, 000.00 with 7% interest per annum against all the respondents. Against the award dtd. 12/01/2011, Insurance Company filed appeal before this Court stating therein that at the time of accident, driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving license to drive the vehicle. Insurance company also filed stay application as well as an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC for taking some document on record. This Court granted stay, thereafter, remanded the matter back vide order dtd. 23/02/2018 to the Claims Tribunal for deciding the case on the basis of the documents and after giving of hearing. In compliance of order dtd. 23/02/2018, Claims tribunal afforded opportunity to both the parties for examination, cross-examination, thereafter, matter was finally heard. Claims Tribunal came to the conclusion that at the time of accident, vehicle in question was being driven in the violation of terms and condition of insurance policy and without effective and valid driving license, exonerated to the insurance company from the liability. Being aggrieved by the impugned award passed by the learned claims tribunal, this appeal has been preferred.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants sub
Manuara Khatun vs. Rajesh Kumar Singh
Shamanna and Another vs. Divisional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
AI
The principle of 'pay and recover' in the context of the liability of the Insurance Company under the Motor Vehicles Act.
The insurance company must prove any alleged breach of policy terms to avoid liability; mere allegations without evidence are insufficient.
An insurance company is not liable for compensation if the policy was cancelled prior to the accident due to non-payment of premium.
Insurance companies remain liable for compensation to third parties despite the driver's invalid license unless there is a fundamental breach of terms.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the liability of the insurance company in cases where the offending vehicle was being driven without a valid permit, applying the principle of 'pay....
The central legal point established is the obligation of the Insurance Company to satisfy the compensation award, highlighting the beneficial nature of the Motor Vehicles Act.
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.