Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 340 (PAT)

New Indian Assurance v. Kiran Singh

2014-03-11

AMARESH KUMAR LAL

body2014
ORDER The insurer of the motor-cycle bearing Registration No. BR 04A-3596, appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment and award dated 30.4.2011 and 12.5.2011 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, FTC-V-cum- Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Saran at Chapra in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 88 of 2000 by which the appellant has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest @ 6 % from the date of filing of the claim petition. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent. 3. The case of the claimant is that on 24.4.2000 at about 8 a.m. the deceased Chandeshwar Prasad Narayan Singh, the owner of the motorcycle Registration No. BR-04A-3596 was returning to his house by motor-cycle, a child all of a sudden crossed the road and to save him he lost balance of the motorcycle and got injury in his head and thereafter during treatment he succumbed to his injuries on 29.4.2000. The deceased was a contractor and was earning Rs.4000/-. The claimants have claimed Rs.5,60,000/- as compensation due to his death for which Lalganj U. D. Case No. 1 of 2000 was instituted. 4. The insurance company has filed written statement as well as additional written statement mentioning therein that the risk of owner of the vehicle was not covered as no premium for him has been paid and the deceased had no licence to drive the motor cycle. 5. After framing of issues the evidence was adduced on behalf of the claimants. 6. No evidence has been adduced on behalf of the insurance company. 7. Ext. 1 is the information given to the police Station; Ext. 2 is the driving licence of the deceased. Ext. 3 is the insurance policy (cover note), Ext. 4 is the registration document regarding the registration of the motorcycle, Ext. 5 is the tax receipt, Ext. 6 is the prescription of the doctor, Ext. 7 is the death certificate issued by the Doctor, Ext. 8 is the copy of U.D. Case No. 1 of 2000 and Ext. 9 is the chart of transportation of the deceased from one hospital to another hospital, besides, documentary evidence oral evidence has also been adduced. 8. It appears from the insurance policy (cover note), Ext. 3 that there was comprehensive policy. 8 is the copy of U.D. Case No. 1 of 2000 and Ext. 9 is the chart of transportation of the deceased from one hospital to another hospital, besides, documentary evidence oral evidence has also been adduced. 8. It appears from the insurance policy (cover note), Ext. 3 that there was comprehensive policy. The insured and any other person who is driving the vehicle on the insured’s order or his permission were also covered under the insurance policy. It appears from the written statement filed on behalf of the appellant in paragraphs 15 and 18 that the motorcycle was insured but the person driving the motorcycle or the insured does not come under the coverage of the insurance policy. Similarly, in the additional written statement it has been mentioned in paragraph 2 that after perusal of the insurance policy it transpires that no premium has been paid to cover the risk of the owner of the alleged motorcycle is quite contrary and incorrect. The deceased was having licence to drive LMV and HMV and he was not disqualified from holding an effective driving licence, as such it cannot be said that the deceased had no driving licence. There is no evidence on the record to suggest that he did not know how to drive the motorcycle. 9. After considering all the materials the learned Tribunal has held that the claimants are entitled to get Rs.1,00,000/- from the insured and I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment. 10. Since the appellant-insurance company has made an incorrect statement before the learned Tribunal by filing written statement and additional written statement as it appears from Ext. 3, Insurance Policy (cover note), regarding the non-coverage of the insured and one person driving the motor cycle on the insured’s order or his permission the insurance company is liable to be punished, as such this appeal is dismissed with a cost of Rs.25,000/- which will be payable to the claimants. 11. The statutory amount deposited in this Court on behalf of the appellants be sent to the learned Tribunal for payment to the claimant, as prayed for on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellants. The statutory amount will be adjusted as costs and it will be paid to the claimants.