Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 606 (JHR)

New India Insurance Company v. Sabana Azmi

2009-04-22

JAYA ROY, M.Y.EQBAL

body2009
ORDER 1. This appeal by the Appellant-insurance Company is directed against the judgment and award dated 20th February, 2008 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chaibasa in Compensation Case No. 20 of 2005 whereby he has awarded compensation and directed the Appellant-Insurance Company to pay the same to the claimants-Respondents. 2. The facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass: On the relevant date of accident, the deceased along with his family members were going to Ranchi by Maruti Van No. JH-05C-2656 to meet their relatives. On the' way because of sudden appearance of turning the driver could not control the vehicle and the vehicle fell into a ditch as result of which one Nizamuddin received severe injury and died. The wife of the deceased was the owner of the vehicle and she was going along with her deceased-husband. The Insurance Company appeared and filed written statement wherein the insurance of the vehicle was admitted but it was pleaded that there is violation of terms and conditions of the policy. The Tribunal after holding that the vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company directed the Appellant to pay the compensation amount. 3. Learned Counsel for the Appellant-Insurance Company assailed the impugned award mainly on the ground that the vehicle was insured tinder a simple policy and the risk of the occupants of the vehicle was not covered. 4. Before the Tribunal neither the Insurance Company nor the owner of the vehicle has produced any document in support of their contention nor any evidence was adduced to show that the occupants of the vehicle was not covered under the policy. One important aspect that needs consideration is that the claim application was filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act under which the claimant is not required to plead; or establish that the death or permanent disablement, in support of which the claim has been made, was due to wrongful act, neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle. 5. In our view, if the claim is made under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act and if any specific defence is taken either by the owner of the vehicle or insurer of the vehicle then the onus is upon the insurer of the vehicle to prove the same by adducing evidence. 5. In our view, if the claim is made under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act and if any specific defence is taken either by the owner of the vehicle or insurer of the vehicle then the onus is upon the insurer of the vehicle to prove the same by adducing evidence. The Tribunal has categorically recorded that "the Insurance Company has pleaded that the owner of the vehicle has violated the terms and conditions of the policy but No. evidence has been adduced on behalf of the Insurance Company. Hence, the Insurance Company has failed to prove the violation of any terms and conditions of the policy." 6. In the aforesaid premises, the impugned judgment and award cannot be interfered with. For the reasons aforesaid, there is No. merit in this appeal, which is accordingly, dismissed. Appeal dismissed.