1

M.A. 79 of 2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

M.A. No. 79 of 2013

(Against the judgment and award dated 04.10.2012 passed by learned Motor

Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal, Chatra in Claim Case No. 29A of 2010)

The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Near Sumanta Auto Service Jhuritilaiya,

Koderma through its Deputy Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vypar

Bhawan, Lalji Hirji Road, P.S.- Kotwali, P.O.- Ranchi, Dist.- Ranchi- Tapas

Kumar Saha, S/o, Late Samarendra Nath Saha, resident of Peace Road, P.O.-

Ranchi, P.S.- Lalpur, District- Ranchi …... Opposite party/ Appellant

Versus

Kausalya Masomat,W/O Late Brahmdeo Yadav, R/O, Lakhibagi, Farenda,

P.S. & Dist.- Koderma, at present resident of Churihar Mohalla, P.O., P.S. &

Dist.- Chatra

….. Applicant/ Respondent

For the Appellant

: Mr. Ashutosh Anand, Adv.

P R E S E N T

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

By the Court:-

Heard the parties.

2. This Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred assailing the judgment

and award dated 04.10.2012 passed by learned Motor Vehicle Accident

Claim Tribunal in Claim Case No. 29A of 2010 whereby and where

under, the MVACT, Chatra directed the opposite party – the United

India Insurance Co. Ltd to pay the compensation of Rs 3,95,000/- to the

claimant / respondent within one month from the date of award, failing

which, the opposite party / appellant was directed to pay the interest @

7% P.A. on the awarded amount from the date of award till its

realization.

3. The brief facts of this case is that the deceased Suraj Yadav, while driving

his tempo which was insured with the opposite party – the United India

Insurance Co. Ltd. under a policy which envisaged the indemnification

extended to personal accident of the owner limited to Rs. 2,00,000/-

under the contract of insurance; the said tempo turned turtle and Suraj

2

M.A. 79 of 2013

Yadav suffered injury in the said accident and eventually succumbed to

his injuries. The mother of the deceased Suraj Yadav, was the claimant

before the MVACT, Chatra in the application filed under Section 166 of

the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and she is the sole respondent in this appeal

who did not appear even after service of notice hence this appeal is heard

ex-party.

4. Learned MVACT, Chatra altogether framed six issues and held that due

to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle, Suraj Yadav died in the

motor accident on 22.04.2010. The vehicle involved in the accident, was

insured with the appellant company. The deceased driver of the vehicle

was having valid and effective driving license at the time of accident but

there was breach of condition of the policy hence awarded the said sum

of Rs. 2,00,000/- with an interest @ 9% per annum as compensation, to be

paid by the appellant company.

5. Mr. Ashutosh Anand, learned counsel for the appellant submits that

learned MVACT, Chatra erred by holding that the claim petition under

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act is maintainable as admittedly, the

deceased was the owner of the vehicle and for reasons stated in the claim

petition, he himself was to be blamed for the accident as the accident did

not involve any motor vehicle other than the one, which was driven by

the deceased, hence, it is submitted that the petition under Section 166 of

the Motor Vehicle Act is not maintainable. In support of his contention,

learned counsel for the appellant relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v.

Jhuma Saha (Smt.) and Others, reported in (2007) 9 SCC 263, paragraph

10 to 13 of which read as under:

“10. The deceased was the owner of the vehicle. For the reasons stated in the claim

petition or otherwise, he himself was to be blamed for the accident. The accident did not

involve motor vehicle other t