Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 407 (HP)

Seema Gajta v. National Insurance Company Ltd.

2018-03-19

SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2018
JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The legal heirs of deceased Inderjit Singh, are aggrieved by the dismissal, of their MACT Petition No. 7-S/2 of 2015, by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Shimla, H.P. 2. The predecessor-in-interest of the claimants, one Inderjit Singh, while driving Alto Car bearing No. HP-03 Temp.4243, suffered his demise, on 10.07.2014. The demise, of the predecessor-in-interest, of the claimants occurred, in sequel to an accident befalling upon the aforesaid vehicle. Qua the aforesaid accident, a FIR bearing No. 42/2014, was registered at Police Station Chopal. A claim petition was instituted under Section 163-A, of the Motor Vehicles Act. However, the learned Tribunal, under the impugned award, did not return any findings upon the issue appertaining, to the demise of deceased Inderjit Singh, occurring in a motor vehicle accident nor it rendered any findings upon issue No.1 qua the entitlement for compensation, of his successors-in-interest. The grounds for declining relief to the claimants, are, anvilled upon infraction, with the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy, being evinced vis-a-vis the relevant vehicle, (a) given deceased Inderjit Singh, in respect of the relevant vehicle, only holding a temporary registration number, and, with the mandate borne in Section 43 of the Motor Vehicles Act, rather enjoining it to hold longevity only upto one month, (b) whereas with the expiry, of the apposite temporary registration number, hence occurring, on 28.06.2014, and, with the relevant accident occurring on 10.07.2014, whereat, it remained unrenewed, (c) thereupon, affirmative findings stood rendered, by the learned tribunal, upon, the apposite issue appertaining to the vehicle, being driving in infraction of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The aforesaid conclusion, drawn by the learned tribunal, is solitarily bedrocked, upon its making perusal (s) of the temporary registration certificate issued, by the relevant Motor Licencing Authority concerned, certificate whereof is borne in Ex.PW1/A. However, given the respondent not, making any efforts, to elicit the apposite records, from the licencing authority concerned, with all denotations borne therein, in respect of deceased Inderjit Singh, on expiry of the temporary registration number, issued vis-a-vis the relevant vehicle, his thereafter seeking issuance vis-a-vis the apposite vehicle, a permanent registration number, (d) whereas, adduction of the aforesaid evidence, was imperative, for ensuring formation of a secure conclusion, qua deceased Inderjit Singh, within one month, since issuance of a temporary registration number qua the vehicle concerned, seeking or not seeking qua it, allotment of a permanent registration number, and, his application for the aforesaid purpose pending approval or an affirmative order being made, upon, his apposite application preferred before the Motor Licencing Authority concerned. Consequently, omission (s) of the learned counsel, for the insurer, to elicit the aforesaid apposite record, from the licencing authority concerned, does foment, a conclusion, (e) of, absence of adduction of best evidence besides consequently its non existence on the record, of the learned Tribunal, rather disabled, it to make any befitting conclusion qua, despite, the longevity, of the temporary registration number issued vis-a-vis the vehicle concerned, remaining or not remaining intact, (f) or even to firmly conclude, of, no permanent registration number qua it being applied for nor approval being meted thereto, (g) whereas, only upon its adduction (s) therebefore, would ensue eruption, of, apt conclusion (s) vis-a-vis the issue appertaining to hence infraction being visited or not being visited qua the terms and conditions, of the Insurance policy. 3. Be that as it may, the absence of adduction, of, the aforesaid material, also constrain (s) this Court, to reverse the affirmative findings rendered thereon, by the learned tribunal. 3. Be that as it may, the absence of adduction, of, the aforesaid material, also constrain (s) this Court, to reverse the affirmative findings rendered thereon, by the learned tribunal. Consequently, for ensuring affording, of opportunities, to the parties at contest, especially for adducing the aforesaid best material before the tribunal, it is deemed fit, and, appropriate that the matter be remanded, to the learned tribunal, for enabling it, to, after affording opportunities, on apposite motions made therebefore, by the litigants concerned, hence ensure adduction of the aforesaid best evidence, from the quarter (s) concerned, whereafter, it shall, in accordance with law, make appraisal (s) thereof, and return fresh findings, upon issue No.4. As aforesaid, the learned tribunal, has, omitted to return findings upon issues No.1 and 2, hence, while it proceeds, to return findings upon issues No.1 and 2, it shall bear in mind, the trite factum of the instant petition, being constituted under the provisions of Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, thereupon, with the respondent being barred, to raise any defence, of deceased Inderjit Singh being negligent in driving, the aforesaid vehicle, especially, with the Hon'ble Apex Court in a judgment rendered in Civil Appeal No. 9694 of 2013, in case titled as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Sunil Kumar & Anr., relevant paragraph No. 9 whereof stand extracted hereinafter:- “9. For the aforesaid reason, we answer the question arising by holding that in a proceeding under Section 163A of the Act, it is not open for the Insurer to raise any defence of negligence on the part of the victim.” making an explicit mandate therein, (i) of the insurer being barred to, in a petition constituted under Section 163A of the Act, hence rear a defence or plea, of the victim committing any tort, while driving the vehicle concerned, (ii) and, even if assumingly, the victim is a tortfeasor, thereupon, any petition cast under Section 163-A of the Act, yet not warranting its dismissal. 4. For the reasons aforestated, the appeal is allowed, and, impugned award is set aside, and, the petition is remanded to the learned tribunal concerned, to, in the light of the aforesaid directions, render fresh findings upon all apposite issues. The parties are directed to appear before the learned tribunal, on 6th April, 2018. 4. For the reasons aforestated, the appeal is allowed, and, impugned award is set aside, and, the petition is remanded to the learned tribunal concerned, to, in the light of the aforesaid directions, render fresh findings upon all apposite issues. The parties are directed to appear before the learned tribunal, on 6th April, 2018. The learned tribunal is directed, to, within three months therefrom, record a fresh decision, upon, the apposite petition. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Records be sent back forthwith.