Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 534 (MP)

Meharban Singh v. Vivek Sharma

2021-07-06

G.S.AHLUWALIA

body2021
ORDER 1. This miscellaneous appeal under section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed against the award dated 26.2.2020 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Vidisha in Claim Case No.100/2018 by which the Insurance Company has been exonerated on the ground that the vehicle in question was not having the fitness certificate. 2. The counsel for the appellants by relying upon the judgment passed by this Court in the case of United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Vinod and others reported in 2020 (1) MPLJ 142 and in the case of Kvita Balethiya and others v. Santosh Kumar and another reported in 2020 ACJ 2077, submitted that it has been held that use of transport vehicle in a public place without permit is a fundamental/statutory infraction and fitness certificate for obtaining the permit is the minimum requirement, therefore, if the offending vehicle was not having the fitness certificate on the date of accident, then the terms and conditions of the insurance policy were violated. It is submitted that in the present case also, the Claims Tribunal should have applied the principle of pay and recover. It is further submitted by the counsel for the appellants that the Claims Tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of injured and thus the compensation amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal is on a higher side. 3. Per contra, the appeal is vehemently opposed by the counsel for the Insurance Company. However, it is fairly conceded that so far as the question of non-availability of fitness certificate is concerned, the said question has already been decided by this Court in the case of Vinod (supra), and Kvita Balethiya (supra). 4. Shri Shyam Kishore Mishra, counsel for the claimant submitted that so far as the compensation granted by the Claims Tribunal is concerned, the same is proper and does not require any interference. However, Shri Mishra also supported the contention of the counsel for the appellants that the Claims Tribunal should have applied the principle of pay and recover. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. This Court in the case of Vinod (supra), has held as under : 17. However, Shri Mishra also supported the contention of the counsel for the appellants that the Claims Tribunal should have applied the principle of pay and recover. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. This Court in the case of Vinod (supra), has held as under : 17. Accordingly, it is held that since the offending vehicle was not having the fitness certificate on the date of the accident, therefore, the terms and conditions of the insurance policy were violated and thus the Insurance Company is not jointly and severally liable to make payment of compensation. However, in the light of the judgments passed by the Supreme Court in the cases of Amrit Paul Singh v. TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in 2019(2) M.P.L.J. (S.C.) 8 = (2018) 7 SCC 558 and Shamanna and another v. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and others, reported in 2018 MPLJ Online (S.C.) 42 = (2018) 9 SCC 650 , it is held that the Insurance Company shall be liable to make payment of the compensation amount with liberty to recover the same from the owner. 7. In the present case also, the offending vehicle was not having valid fitness certificate, therefore, it cannot be said to be a technical breach but it would be a fundamental breach and thus the terms and conditions of Insurance Policy were violated. However, after applying principle of pay and recover, the Insurance Company shall be free to recover the amount from the owner and driver after making payment of the same to the claimant. 8. So far as the quantum of compensation amount is concerned, the respondent No.1 has filed the receipts worth Rs.1,02,128/- to show the expenses for his treatment. The Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.3000/- by way of expenses for nutritious food at the rate of Rs.200/- per day. The Claims Tribunal has also awarded Rs.5,000/- for pain and sufferings due to injuries sustained by respondent No.1 which cannot be said to be on a higher side. 9. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the compensation amount of Rs.1,10,128/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal to the respondent No.1 on account of injuries sustained by him cannot be said to be without any record or evidence. 10. 9. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the compensation amount of Rs.1,10,128/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal to the respondent No.1 on account of injuries sustained by him cannot be said to be without any record or evidence. 10. Ex consequenti, the impugned award dated 26.2.2020 passed in Claim Case No.100/2018 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Vidisha is hereby modified to the extent mentioned above. 11.With aforesaid observation, the appeal is finally disposed of.