Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 264 (MP)

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. GOVIND RAM

2015-03-03

R.S.JHA

body2015
ORDER : R.S. Jha, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. By the consent of the parties the appeal is heard and decided finally. 2. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/Insurance Company against the award dated 13-1-2006 passed by the MACT, Dindori, in MACT No.11/2005. 3. The brief facts leading to filing of the present appeal are that the claimant-Govind Ram suffered two fractures in the right hand on account of an accident that occurred on 1-3-2002, while he was travelling in a Jeep No. MP-26-F/3163, which is owned by the respondent No. 3 and was being driven by respondent No. 2. The claimant-Govind Ram, who is respondent No. 1 in the present appeal undertook treatment, and thereafter, filed a claim case alleging that he had suffered permanent disability in his hand and has suffered grievous injuries in his leg, thigh and back. 4. The Claims Tribunal, after framing the issues and recording the evidence has awarded compensation to the respondent No. 1 to the tune of Rs. 19,265/- to be recovered jointly and severally from the appellant/Insurance Company and the owner and driver of the vehicle. 5. The Insurance Company being aggrieved by the aforesaid award, has filed the present appeal alleging that the Tribunal had committed gross illegality in allowing the claim as far as the Insurance Company is concerned as it could not have done so after having recorded clear finding to the effect that the owner and driver of the vehicle concerned had committed breach of insurance policy as much as the driver did not have a driving licence and on the ground of charging of fare from the persons travelling in the vehicle, though it was not insured as a commercial vehicle. 6. It is submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant that categorical findings to that effect have been recorded by the Tribunal in Paragraphs 20, 25 and 31 of the award but in spite of doing so it has held the Insurance Company to be jointly and severally liable to indemnify and compensate, which is contrary to law and in such circumstances the impugned award passed by the Claims Tribunal deserves to be set aside. 7. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3 does not dispute the findings of fact recorded by the Claims Tribunal in Paragraphs 20, 25 and 31 of the impugned award. 7. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3 does not dispute the findings of fact recorded by the Claims Tribunal in Paragraphs 20, 25 and 31 of the impugned award. He also states that no appeal has been filed by the owner or driver against the impugned award. In such circumstances, as the findings recorded by the Claims Tribunal are not disputed and have not been challenged, therefore, I do not find any justification for holding the appellant/Insurance Company to be liable for compensating the victim, once the breach of conditions of the Insurance Company has been established and finding in that regard has been recorded by the Tribunal in Paragraphs 20, 25 and 31 of the impugned award. 8. In view of the aforesaid, the appeal, as far as the appellant/Insurance Company is concerned, is allowed and the impugned award passed by the Claims Tribunal is modified to the extent that the amount of compensation awarded shall be recovered only from the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and not from the appellant/Insurance Company, who is exonerated from any liability. The appeal filed by the appellant/Insurance Company, is allowed and the impugned award passed by the Claims Tribunal stands modified to the extent indicated above.