Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 238 (PNJ)

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Savitri Devi

2014-01-30

JITENDRA CHAUHAN

body2014
JUDGMENT Jitendra Chauhan, J. 1. The above mentioned cases are being disposed of by this common judgment since the disputes of claims are arising out of one and the same accident and against the five different impugned awards dated 01.02.2000 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rupnagar on account of death of four persons as common question for determination arises in these five appeals. However, the facts of the case are being taken up from the F.A.O. No. 1589 of 2000. Brief facts of the case are that on 26.12.1996, Kamal Kumar, Ram Krishan, Ram Jia, Balraj and Satish Kumar and others were going from their village to Ambala for selling vegetables etc. They started from their village in Tempo No. HP-12-3552. The Tempo was being driven by respondent No. 1 rashly and negligently. When they reached near Jaggi Palace Hotel at Balachaur road ahead from Kiratpur Sahib, it was about 4:00 a.m. on 27.12.1996. As a result of rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1, Tempo over turned and fell in ditches, as a result of which Kamal Kumar, Ram Krishan, Ram Jia, Balraj died whereas Satish Kumar was injured. Kamal Kumar @ Ram had died in P.G.I. on 05.01.1997. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company states that the F.I.R. was registered against respondent No. 1 on the basis of statement made by one Budh Ram, whereas, as per the policy only five persons including driver can travel in the vehicle. He further submitted that vehicle in question was not being used in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy. It was also stated that the vehicle was carrying the passengers, whereas, it was insured for carrying goods. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that learned Tribunal has given a erroneous finding by making the company liable to pay the compensation when it is proved on record that the vehicle in question was being driven in contravention of the terms and the conditions of the insurance policy and the vehicle is meant for carrying five persons only which includes the driver. But as per the F.I.R. fourteen persons were travelling in the Tempo as passengers in addition to the driver. It is clear that the vehicle was being used in violation of the policy and in the circumstances, the company is not liable to pay compensation. But as per the F.I.R. fourteen persons were travelling in the Tempo as passengers in addition to the driver. It is clear that the vehicle was being used in violation of the policy and in the circumstances, the company is not liable to pay compensation. Therefore only owner and driver of the tempo are liable to pay the compensation of the appellants. He cites New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs. Asha Rani and Others, 2003 (2) Supreme Court Cases 223. 3. Learned amicus curiae argued that the learned Tribunal has rightly held the Insurance Company to pay the compensation. He argued that if a person travels in the goods vehicle along with goods, he cannot be termed as passenger travelling in violation of terms and conditions of the policy. He cites National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Sudarshan Devi and Others, 1997 ACJ 1424 . 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record very carefully. 5. The only point for determination is as to whether the appellant Insurance Company has a right to recover the compensation from the owner? 6. Fourteen people were travelling in a vehicle which was a goods vehicle. In the accident, six people died and one suffered injuries. It is clear from the record that the vehicle, registered as goods vehicle, had been carrying 14 people, as against the carrying capacity of five persons including the driver. Therefore, the vehicle was being used in violations of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Thus, it is held that the vehicle was being used in violation of the policy. The findings of the learned Tribunal fastening the liability on the Insurance Company are erroneous. The learned Tribunal has legally erred in ignoring the provisions of Sections 147 and 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Where the vehicle is used in violation of the terms and conditions of the Policy, the liability could not be fastened upon the Insurance Company. It is proved on record that the driver of the Tempo was rashly and negligently driving the vehicle. The award is modified to that extent that the appellant-Company shall have a right to recover the compensation from the owner and driver of the vehicle jointly and severally. 7. No other point has been argued. 8. It is proved on record that the driver of the Tempo was rashly and negligently driving the vehicle. The award is modified to that extent that the appellant-Company shall have a right to recover the compensation from the owner and driver of the vehicle jointly and severally. 7. No other point has been argued. 8. Accordingly, these appeals are disposed of with a modification of the award dated 01.02.2000, to the extent that the Insurance Company is granted the recovery rights from the owner and driver of the Tempo jointly and severally in all the connected cases arising out of this accident. However, Amicus Curiae be paid remunerations by the Haryana State Legal Service Authority as per rules who was appointed vide order dated 15.01.2014 in all the appeals, to assist this Court on behalf of the claimants-respondents. Disposed off.