Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 656 (JHR)

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Agni Devi

2009-04-29

JAYA ROY, M.Y.EQBAL

body2009
ORDER This appeal has been filed by the appellant-Insurance Company against the judgment and award passed by the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranchi in Compensation Case No. 209 of 2005. 2. This claim application was filed by the widow aged about 25 years, one daughter, aged about 8 years, two sons, aged about 5 years and 3 years and old mother aged about 55 years for the grant of compensation for the death of a young bread-earner of the family, who died in a motor vehicle accident. The deceased, Rajesh Nayak, was dashed by a bus bearing registration No. JH-01A 8383 which was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver. The deceased succumbed to the injuries. He was aged about 32 years and due to his death, the claimants put to starvation. 3. The claimants' case is that the deceased was a bus agent and was earning Rs. 4,000/- per month. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranchi in Compensation Case No. 209 of 2005 assessed the compensation of Rs. 2,81,500/- and directed the Insurance Company to pay the said amount to the claimants. Aggrieved by the said award, the appellant-Insurance Company has filed this appeal. 4. Mr. Alok Lal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant assailed the impugned award not on the quantum of compensation assessed by the Tribunal but on the sole ground that the Tribunal has not recorded any findings that the driver was not holding a valid driving licence. Learned counsel further submitted that even the driving licence was not produced and the same was not proved by the owner of the bus nor any advance was laid to that effect. 5. From perusal of the judgment, it appears that the owner did not contest the claim case. The appellant-Insurance Company filed an application before the Tribunal under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking leave to contest the claim case on behalf of the owner of the vehicle also and the said prayer was allowed. It further appears from the judgment that the Insurance Company has taken evasive defence in the written statement as usually taken in all the claim cases i.e. all the papers pertaining to the vehicles including driving licence, which were not in order at the time of accident. 6. It further appears from the judgment that the Insurance Company has taken evasive defence in the written statement as usually taken in all the claim cases i.e. all the papers pertaining to the vehicles including driving licence, which were not in order at the time of accident. 6. Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Old Section 110-C(2A) of 1939 Act] was introduced with the sole object to safeguard the interest of the insurer. In case, where the owner of the vehicle in collusion with the claimants, makes a claim or in case where the owner fails to contest the claim case, the insurer takes leave of the court to contest the claim on all grounds, which are available to the owner of the vehicle. In such cases, where the leave of the Court is obtained by the insurer to contest the case on behalf of the insured also, then it is for the insurer to take all the defences available to the owner for the purpose of denying the liability. 7. In the instant case, neither there is any specific pleading from the side of the insurer that the bus was being driven by a person not holding a driving licence nor any evidence was led to that effect. In the said circumstances, the Tribunal rightly held that the insurer is liable for payment of compensation. 8. For the reasons aforesaid, the impugned judgment and award needs no interference by this Court. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.