Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 360 (CHH)

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Milap Singh

2014-10-10

P.SAM KOSHY

body2014
ORDER : P. Sam Koshy, J. 1. Present is an appeal preferred by the appellant/Insurance Company under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act challenging the award dated 03.03.2012 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Katghora, Korba in C.T. No. 57/10. 2. Brief facts leading to the instant appeal are that the claimants i.e. respondents 1 & 2 who are the parents of deceased Tejab Singh filed a claim application under section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act before the Additional Motor Accident Claims, Tribunal, Katghora which was registered as C.T. No. 57/10. The Claim of the claimants before the Tribunal was that on 27.03.2010 while their son Tejab Singh was standing on the road, a tractor bearing registration No. CG 12 ZG 0120 attached to trolley No. CG 12 G 0119 came rashly and negligently and dashed their son Tejab Singh. The said offending vehicle was being driven by respondent No. 3 Nand Kumar Yadav, owned by respondent No. 4 Omkar Singh and was insured with the present appellant. As a result of the accident, Tejab Singh received injuries and later on he died on account of the seriousness of the injuries. It was alleged by the claimants that the deceased was working as a contractor and at the time of incident he was aged about 18 years and thus, the claimants had claimed for an amount of Rs. 90,37,000. 3. The Tribunal having issued notice to the respondents i.e. the driver, the owner and the insurer of the offending vehicle, entered appearance and submitted their respective written statements. The driver and the owner of the vehicle in their written statement denied the negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle at the time of the accident. However, it was submitted that the owner of the vehicle had already got the vehicle insured and if at all if any liability is casted upon the owner of the vehicle for payment of compensation, the same shall be indemnified/paid by the insurance Company. 4. However, it was submitted that the owner of the vehicle had already got the vehicle insured and if at all if any liability is casted upon the owner of the vehicle for payment of compensation, the same shall be indemnified/paid by the insurance Company. 4. As far as the appellant/Insurance Company is concerned, they had in their written statement categorically denied the claim of the claimants and also submitted that the owner of the vehicle did not have proper permit of operating the vehicle and that the owner was plying the vehicle contrary to the policy condition and that the deceased was also negligible and responsible for the accident and therefore denied the claim raised by the claimants. 5. The Tribunal after conclusion of the pleadings and recording of the evidences vide its order dated 03.03.2012 passed an award in favour of the claimants and held the respondents i.e. the driver, the owner and the insurer Company of the offending vehicle to be jointly or severally liable for payment of compensation. The Claims Tribunal quantified the compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,66,500 and directed the Insurance Company to pay the said amount within a period of 45 days along with interest @ 6% per annum. 6. It is this award dated 03.03.2012 which is put to challenge by the Insurance Company by way of the instant appeal. 7. The appeal has been preferred by the appellant/Insurance Company in the instant case on two grounds: Firstly, the Insurance Company is not liable for payment of compensation as there is a breach of policy condition by the owner of the vehicle. Secondly, the quantum of compensation is also exorbitant. 8. In support of the first contention i.e. the breach of policy condition the appellant has also moved an application under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 C.P.C. which is registered as I.A. No. 2 wherein the Insurance Company has submitted on the basis of the report of an Investigator that on the date of accident, the driver of the offending vehicle i.e. respondent No. 3 Nand Kumar Yadav was not having valid driving license and that the Driving License so produced by the said driver was a fake license and therefore, as there is breach of policy condition, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation. 9. 9. The said issue raised by the Insurance Company is no longer res integra on account of the recent decisions pronounced by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Lal Chand v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 2006 AIR SCW 4832 and in the matter of Pepsu Road Transport Corporation v. National Insurance Company 2013 AIR SCW 6505 : 2013(IV) TAC 16 (SC). Based on these two decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this High Court also decided in the case of M/s. Primenet Global Limited v. Phiranlal Suryavanshi and others in Misc. Appeal (c) No. 1289 of 2009 on 09.05.2014 categorically holding that in the event the owner of the vehicle at the time of engaging the driver had found that the driver was having a license and the owner had also subjected the driver to show his competence by driving the vehicle and only after having found him competent to drive the vehicle engaged him as a driver, at a later stage if at all the driving license is found to be fake, there would be no breach of policy condition and the Insurance Company would not then be absolved of its liability. In the instant case also the facts are identical in nature if we peruse the award of the Tribunal as well as the records, the Claims Tribunal in Paragraph-15 very categorical terms relied upon the evidence of the owner of the vehicle Omkar Singh (DW-3) who has stated before the Court that while engaging the driver he had asked him to produce his driving license which the driver had produced and he had also put the driver to a test drive and after finding him competent engaged him. It was this finding of fact on the basis of which the Tribunal has awarded the compensation to be paid by the Insurance Company to the claimants. 10. Thus, this Court is also of the view that the instant case also is squarely covered by the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above referred two judgments as also the judgment of this High Court in the case of M/s. Primenet Global Limited (Supra) and the findings of the tribunal and the Award is perfectly proper, legal and justified. 11. 11. As regards the second contention of the appellant in respect of the quantum awarded by the Tribunal is exorbitant, the same is not sustainable on account of the fact that the application under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act preferred by the appellant has already been rejected by the Tribunal on 25.08.2011. Hence, the appellant cannot now challenge the quantum awarded by the Tribunal as the said position of law is also settled from the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court Pepsu Road Transport Corporation v. National Insurance Company 2013 AIR SCW 6505 : 2013(IV) TAC 16 (SC). 12. In view of the aforesaid legal position and also the factual position of the instant case, this Court is of the opinion that the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company is totally devoid of merits. Hence, the same is hereby dismissed.