Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 340 (UTT)

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. KHASTI PANT

2014-09-01

SERVESH KUMAR GUPTA

body2014
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the learned counsel for the claimant/respondent no.1, the facts, as emerging out, are that the vehicle Maruti Car, bearing No.DL-3 CH 3880, was insured with the appellants-Insurance Company, which was owned by Mr. Mukesh Goyal at the time of accident. In the intervening night of 22/23.03.1998, the vehicle was stolen from the residence of its owner at New Delhi. The first information report of theft was lodged by the owner of the car on 24.3.1998. Mr. Goyal also sent information of the alleged theft to the Insurance Company on 25.3.1998. 2. This vehicle met with an accident in Almora (now in State of Uttarakhand) on 25.4.1998 at 10 PM dashing one Daya Krishan Pant, who lost his life as a result of such incident. So, his wife Smt. Khasti Pant instituted the Motor Accident Claim Petition No.54 of 1998. She was awarded Rs.5,12,000/- as compensation to be paid by the appellants. 3. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company with the contention that at the time of incident, the vehicle was being driven, by a person who was not in the service of its owner. Thus, there was no relation of principal and agent existing between the owner of the vehicle and its driver at the time of incident. In such a situation, the Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay the amount. 4. It is not in dispute that the vehicle, in question, was duly insured with the appellants including the third party cover. So, in my opinion too, the Insurance Company cannot deny to make the payment just on the grounds, as put forth by its learned counsel. In this regard, the ratio, as expressed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ‘National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Nitin Khandelwal’ (2008) 11 SCC 259 , is also in conformity with this Court’s view. 5. So, the Court does not find any force in this appeal, which is liable to be dismissed. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. 6. Let a copy of this judgment along with the lower court record be transmitted to the court concerned.