Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 921 (JK)

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sharda Devi

2018-11-29

DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR

body2018
JUDGMENT : Dhiraj Singh Thakur, J. 1. Since common questions of law and fact are involved in all the appeals, I propose to dispose of the same by way of a common judgment. 2. All these appeals have been preferred against judgment and award dated 29.06.2013 whereby the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Ramban has awarded different amounts as compensation in all these petitions to the claimants under various heads along with interest @ 7.5% per annum. 3. Briefly stated the material facts as under: 4. All the claim petitions came to be filed by the claimants/respondents herein before the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Ramban, claiming compensation on account of the death of the deceased (in all the petitions) in an accident which occurred while the deceased were travelling in a truck bearing registration No. JK02U-9658 on 22.01.2017 at Thard, Udhampur. 5. Objections were filed to the claim petition wherein a general stand was taken that the insurance company was not liable in view of the fact that there was a violation of the terms and conditions of policy of the insurance. A specific objection was taken that the deceased in all the petitions were travelling as gratuitous passengers in the truck and therefore, no liability could be fastened on the insurance company. 6. The Tribunal appears to have framed as many as three issues; in all the petitions, one of which was issue No. 3 to the effect as to whether the vehicle was being driven at the time of accident in contravention of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Admittedly, the insurance company did not lead any evidence to prove issue No. 3 notwithstanding the fact that the onus lay on it. The Tribunal finally decided the said issue in all the petitions against the insurance company by holding that the insurance company had failed to discharge the burden in regard to issue No. 3. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants, urged that the view taken by the Tribunal was illegal and erroneous inasmuch as it was an admitted fact that the deceased in all the petitions were travelling in a truck which was a goods vehicle and, therefore, nothing more had to be proved by the insurance company to discharge its burden. 8. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants, urged that the view taken by the Tribunal was illegal and erroneous inasmuch as it was an admitted fact that the deceased in all the petitions were travelling in a truck which was a goods vehicle and, therefore, nothing more had to be proved by the insurance company to discharge its burden. 8. It was further stated that the basis of the Tribunal's order for awarding compensation in all the petitions lay on the documents produced by the claimants, which were in the form of a copy of the challan, which specifically stated that the death of the deceased in all the petitions had occurred during the course of the deceased travelling in the truck bearing registration No. JK02U-9858. 9. It was further reiterated that if the Tribunal had accepted the challan for passing its award in regard to compensation, it could not have ignored a portion of it, which specifically reflected that the vehicle was a goods vehicle. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, placed reliance upon a Division Bench judgment of this court titled New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Farida Begum & Ors. reported in 2006 (1) JKJ 603 [HC] to bring home the point that notwithstanding the fact that an objection may be taken by the insurance company denying its liability in general terms as regards violation of the conditions of the policy of insurance company, yet unless the objection so taken is also proved by leading evidence, the claim cannot be denied. 11. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 12. Admittedly, the vehicle in which the deceased in all the petitions were travelling was a goods vehicle being a truck. It is also admitted that the insurance company had set up a defence that since it was a goods vehicle, therefore, the insurance company was not liable. However, in terms of the amendment incorporated in the Motors Vehicle Act to Section 147 on 14.11.1994, the position now has changed to some extent. After amendment of Section 147, it is mandatory that a policy of insurance must be a policy to insure any person against any liability which may be incurred by him in respect of the death or bodily injury to any person, including owner of the goods or his authorized representative. After amendment of Section 147, it is mandatory that a policy of insurance must be a policy to insure any person against any liability which may be incurred by him in respect of the death or bodily injury to any person, including owner of the goods or his authorized representative. A person who thus travels in a goods vehicle with goods or even his representative in the event of an accident would be fully covered. 13. In order to succeed, the insurance company therefore, had to prove that the deceased in all the petitions were travelling without goods in the vehicle which met with an accident. Onus was clearly on the insurance company to lead evidence to that extent. Simply, by saying that the deceased in all the petitions were travelling in goods vehicle would not be sufficient to deny liability in terms of Section 147. There cannot be any dispute with the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd. v. Premlata Shukla reported in 2007 (13) SCC 476 that once a part of the contents of the document is admitted in evidence, the party bringing the same on record cannot be permitted to turn round and contend that the other contents contained in the rest part thereof had not been proved, yet counsel for the appellant failed to show that any part of the document relied upon by the claimants even remotely indicated that the deceased in all the petitions were not travelling with goods at the time when they met with an accident. The judgment (supra), therefore, does not strictly apply in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 14. Be that as it may, having considered the matter in its entirety, in my view, the judgments and awards in all the petitions needs no interference at all. The appeals are found to be without any merit and are accordingly dismissed. The amount deposited in the Registry be released in favour of the claimants in all the petitions after due verification.