Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 419 (MP)

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mullo Devi

2019-06-19

RAJEEV KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA

body2019
ORDER 1. This judgment shall govern the disposal of both Misc. Appeals No. 700/2015 and 701/2015, as both the appeals have arisen out of the common Award dated 2.5.2015 passed by Twelfth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Gwalior in Claim Cases No. 70/2014 and 71/2014. 2. It is not necessary to narrate the entire facts in detail as to the manner the accident has occurred, to burden the judgment on the said issues. It is only the liability on the part of the insurance company to pay the compensation is being considered and decided in succeeding paragraphs. 3. Both the appeals have been filed by Insurance Company assailing the impugned award on the ground that the driving licence of the driver of the insured vehicle was forged. And the owner of the offending vehicle has not entered into the witness box to establish the fact that he did not permit his vehicle to be plied in contravention of sections 3 and 4 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, an adverse inference deserves to be drawn against the owner and the insurance company deserves exoneration of the liability to pay the amount of compensation. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the insurance company placed reliance on the judgments in the cases of United India Insurance Co. v. Gian Chand) [ 1997 ACJ 1065 ]; National Insurance Company vs. Bundu Khan [MACD 2008 (1) (MP) 198]; National Insurance Co. v. Kusum Rai [2006 ACJ (2) 1336 (SC)]; United India Insurance Company v. Rakesh Arora [ 2008 ACJ 2855 ]; Bhuwan Singh v. Oriental Insurance Company, [2009 (3) TAC 33 (SC)]; Pappu v. Vinod Kumar [ 2018 (1) TAC 360 (SC)]; and, United India Insurance Company v. Sujata Arora [2013 (3) TAC 29 (SC)]. It has also been submitted that the amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is otherwise inflated and the same deserves to be suitably reduced. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/ claimants has submitted that if driver did not possess a valid and requisite license at the time of accident, the insurance company cannot be exonerated. In support of this version, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants placed reliance on the judgment in Singh Ram v. Nirmala and others (Civil Appeal No. 2103/2018, decided on 6.3.2018). 5. In support of this version, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants placed reliance on the judgment in Singh Ram v. Nirmala and others (Civil Appeal No. 2103/2018, decided on 6.3.2018). 5. The Claims Tribunal has discussed in detail on the point of liability of the insurance company to indemnify the insured and has given a finding that the insurance company has not adduced any evidence to establish that the accident had occurred due to contributory negligence of the deceased and injured and from perusal of the documents available on record it is apparent that the driver of the offending vehicle was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently, therefore, the insurance company cannot be exonerated from its liability to pay the compensation. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the driver of the offending vehicle (Truck bearing registration No. RJ-11/GA 3381) while driving the vehicle rashly and negligently dashed the motor cycle due to which Ramniwas (MA No. 700/2015) died and Ramprakash (MA No. 701/2015) sustained injuries and the offending vehicle was insured with the appellant-insurance company, therefore, the Claims Tribunal has rightly held the insurance company liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. No interference by this Court is called for in the impugned award and the appeals filed by the insurance company are hereby dismissed. 7. In the facts of the case, the parties are directed to bear their own costs.