Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 786 (ALL)

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Halima Khatoon

2017-03-20

K.J.THAKER

body2017
JUDGMENT : KAUSHAL JAYENDRA THAKER, J. 1. Heard Sri Kuldip Shanker Amist, learned counsel for appellant, Sri Nigmendra Shukla, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 3 and Sri S.K. Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of UPSRTC. 2. This appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ( hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1988") at the instance of appellant-Insurance Company has arisen from judgment and award dated 30.3.2002 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Bulandshahar (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal") in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.76 of 2000. 3. Sri Kuldip Shanker Amist, learned counsel for appellant stated that Bus No. UP 15F/8686 involved in the accident which was ensured with the appellant was running under the contract of UPSRTC and at the time of accident neither the owner of the bus nor the respondent nor the appellant were liable to pay any compensation and it was only the UPSRTC who was to pay the amount of compensation. The Insurance Company has taken the plea that their liability did not arise and they took recourse under Section 147 of Act, 1988 as a vehicle under a contract was not covered by the Policy. 4. It is submitted that as per case of the claimants, the Bus UP 15F/8686 was running as U.P. State Roadways Transport Corporation undertaking, moreover, the order dated 25.2.1999 of the Regional Manager UP State Roadways Transport Corporation, Meerut Region was filed as paper No. 11 C which proved so and the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal also found so and, therefore, appellant was not liable to pay any amount of compensation. 5. While going through the record, it is very clear that the Insurance Company has not proved that the driver did not have any driving licence or that any of the terms or conditions of the policy were breached under Section 147 of Act, 1988. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation was the owner of the vehicle. The Apex Court in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Kulsum and others, 2011(8) SCC 142 and Managing Director, K.S.R.T.C. v. India Insurance Company, 2016 (2) SCC 382 , held that Insurance Company cannot avoid its liability by invoking the provision of Section 147. 6. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation was the owner of the vehicle. The Apex Court in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Kulsum and others, 2011(8) SCC 142 and Managing Director, K.S.R.T.C. v. India Insurance Company, 2016 (2) SCC 382 , held that Insurance Company cannot avoid its liability by invoking the provision of Section 147. 6. In light of the aforesaid decision of Apex Court and latest decision of this High Court in UPSRTC v. Sukha Devi and others, 2016 Lawsuit(All) 3567 wherein it is held that "it is an admitted position of fact and undisputed that owner has placed vehicle with Corporation but the insurance continued even on date of accident". This ground that the Insurance Company would not have been made liable cannot be sustained and the same is rejected. 7. This Court is not called upon to decide on any other issue. 8. This appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. 9. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.