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

2024 Supreme(Online)(RAJ) 2312

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI, J
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. – Appellant
Versus
HUKMARAM and ORS – Respondent
CMA / 2692 / 2016



Advocates:
Mr. Anil Bachhawat with Mr. M.P. Goswami for Appellant(s); Mr. Sanjay Gupta for Owner and Driver for Respondent(s)

The vehicle involved was classified as a Mini-Bus, not an ambulance, and lacked a valid permit, absolving the insurance company from liability under the Motor Vehicles Act.

Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 41(4), 66, and 173 - Appeals by Insurance Company against MACT award - Vehicle involved in accident was a Mini-Bus, not an ambulance - Vehicle lacked valid permit and was overloaded - Insurance company exonerated from liability. (Paras 1, 11, 30, 31)

(B) Liability of Insurance Company - Insurance policy conditions must be fulfilled for indemnification - Absence of permit and violation of policy conditions absolves insurer from liability. (Paras 11, 27, 30)

(C) Definition of Ambulance - Vehicle must be designed for emergency transportation to qualify as an ambulance under the Act - Merely transporting patients post-surgery does not qualify. (Paras 22, 30)

Facts of the case:
The appeals arise from a common judgment regarding claims for compensation due to an accident involving a Mini-Bus transporting patients after eye surgery. The vehicle was driven negligently, leading to fatalities and injuries. The insurance company contended that the vehicle was overloaded and lacked a valid permit.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the vehicle was not an ambulance, lacked a valid permit, and thus the insurance company was not liable for compensation.

Issues: The main issues included whether the vehicle was an ambulance and the implications of lacking a valid permit.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the vehicle's classification as a Mini-Bus and its use for non-emergency transport meant it did not qualify for the ambulance exemption under the Act.

Result: Appeals partly allowed; insurance company exonerated from liability.

Judgment

REPORTABLE Reserved on: 27/08/2024 Pronounced on: 02/09/2024

1. These appeals have been preferred by the Appellant/Insurance Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter as ‘the Act’) against the common judgment and award dated 11.08.2016(hereinafter as ‘the impugned award’) passed by learned MACT whereby the learned tribunal has partly allowed claims of the respective claimants in MAC Case no. 414/2015 (Injury matter), MAC Case No. 413/2015 (Injury matter), MAC Case No. 416/2015 (Death matter), MAC Case No. 417/2015 (Death matter), MAC Case No. 415/2015 (Injury matter), MAC Case No. 419/2015 (Death Matter), MAC Case No. 589/2015 (Death matter) and MAC Case No. 418/2015 (Death matter) and the Appellant/Insurance Company along with the Owner and driver of the offending vehicle has been held jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. These appeals have been filed seeking quashing of the impugned award in respect of the above Claim petitions. As these appeals arise out of the same accident the facts of appeal no. S.B. C.M.A. No. 2729/2016 are being taken, illustratively.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 26.08.2012 the claimants, after getting Eye Surgery/Eye Treatment at an Eye Health Camp organized at Barmer Netra Jyoti Hospital, Barmer were returning to their respective destinations along with their relatives onboard the Mini Bus bearing registration no. RJ04 PA 0580(hereinafter as ‘the offending vehicle’) of Barmer Jan Seva Samiti, which was being driven negligently and at high speed by Tulcharam (hereinafter as ‘Driver/Respondent No. 2’) and at around 12:00PM – 12:30PM on 26.08.2012, the vehicle turned turtle as a result of burst of its rear tyre near Surat ki Beri on N.H.-15. As a result of the accident some of the passengers travelling in the vehicle died and others sustained injuries. On the written complaint of one- Ramesh who was also traveling in the vehicle, the police registered FIR No. 151/12 and after investigation submitted a Chargesheet against the Driver/Respondent No. 2. The claimants filed their respective claim petitions before the learned tribunal seeking compensation.

3. It was averred in the claim petitions by the claimants that Omprakash (Respondent no. 3/Owner) and Driver/Respondent No. 2 are the owner and driver of the vehicle respectively and the vehicle was insured with the appellant/insurance company therefore, they all are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

4. It was contended by the Respondent no. 3/owner and Respondent no. 2/driver in their common reply to the claim petition before the learned tribunal that the accident did not happen due to the negligent driving. They further contended that the vehicle was under the control and ownership of Barmer Jan Seva Samiti, Barmer (A NGO which operates Shelter Homes and Netra Jyoti Hospital, where economically weak eye-patients are provided eye treatment/surgeries free of cost). They further averred in their reply that in alternative if the learned tribunal finds any negligence on the part of the driver/respondent no. 2 then the appellant/insurance company should be held liable as the vehicle was insured with it.

5. It was contended by the appellant/insurance company in its reply to the claim petition before the learned tribunal that around 45-40 passengers were travelling in the vehicle at the time of the accident however, as per the registration certificate of the vehicle its seating capacity is only of 20 passengers. It was further alleged by the appellant/insurance company that the vehicle did not have any permit and fitness at the time of the accident which is a clear violation of the insurance policy hence, the appellant/insurance company is not liable to pay.

6. As per the pleadings of the parties, the learned tribunal framed four issues which are being reproduced as follows:

“(1) आया(cid:3) दि(cid:5)नां(cid:3)(cid:7)क 26.08.2012 क(cid:9) दि(cid:5)नां क(cid:10) करी(cid:12)ब

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