Uttarakhand High Court
The United India Insurance Company Ltd vs Bikha Devi And Others on 9 January, 2018
Author: Lok Pal Singh
Bench: Lok Pal Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Appeal From Order No.13 of 2018
The United India Insurance Company Ltd.
.....Appellant
Versus
Smt. Bikha Devi & Ors. ....Respondents
Mr. Pankaj Purohit, Advocate for the appellant
Hon'ble Lok Pal Singh, J. (Oral)
This appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 25.11.2017 passed by M.A.C.T./District Judge, Tehri Garhwal in M.A.C.P. case no.14 of 2017, whereby the claimants/respondents have been awarded a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- against the appellant along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of institution of petition till the date of actual payment.
2. While hearing on admission, learned counsel for the appellant insisted that the interim relief application has been filed and if court is not willing to grant any interim order then the purpose of filing the appeal would frustrate and in such an event, the Court may decide the appeal at the admission stage. In such circumstances, with the consent of the learned counsel for the appellant, the appeal is being heard finally at the admission stage today itself.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the deceased Mangal Singh was owner-cum-driver of vehicle no.UK09TA-0468 Bolero. On 19.01.2017 at 08:30 he 2 was coming back by vehicle no.UK09TA-0468 from Theem Consultancy Dharkot. At the place Khambhikhal bend Chaudhar due to some technical fault the vehicle fell down into 600 mts. deep gorge, due to which the deceased received injuries and he succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident. The claimants filed the claim petition with the averments that the deceased was a driver-cum-owner of the vehicle and was earning Rs.36,000/- per month. At the time of accident, he was only about 35 years old.
4. The appellant/United India Insurance Company Ltd. filed its written statement and denied all the averments of the claim petition. In preliminary objection, it stated that the driver-owner was not insured and no premium was paid for owner-driver and as such the petition for compensation of deceased driver-owner is not maintainable. The insurance company has no liability to pay the compensation to the owner of the vehicle so the owner is not entitled for compensation. In additional plea, it is stated that at the time of the accident the owner of the vehicle was not having the valid registration, permit, fitness and insurance policy, the driver of the vehicle was not having the valid driving license at the time of the accident. It is contended that the owner of the vehicle has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, therefore, the claim petition is liable to be rejected against the insurance company.
5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed in this petition:-
3i) Whether the claim petition is maintainable as alleged by the opposite party/insurance in para no.1 & 2 of written statement? If so, its effect?
ii) Whether the deceased Mangal Singh owner-
cum-driver of vehicle no.UK09 TA0468 died due to the injuries received in accident said to be occurred on 19.01.2017 at 8.30 pm due to technical failure of the vehicle?
iii) Whether at the time of accident there were valid papers of the vehicle no.UK-09 TA 0468 such as registration, permit, fitness, etc. and its driver was having valid driving license?
iv) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, how much and from whom?
6. In oral evidence, the claimant Smt. Bikha Devi got examined herself as PW1 and PW2 Tikam Singh Chauhan. In documentary evidence, identify card, driving license, family register, death certificate, G.D. of police Station, inquest report, postmortem report, insurance cover note, registration certificate, permit, fitness certificate, etc. The appellant Insurance Compant neither adduced oral evidence nor filed any documentary evidence.
7. After hearing the parties and the evidence led by the parties, the Tribunal decided all the issues in favour of the claimants and vide its judgment and award dated 25.11.2017, awarded compensation Rs.2,00,000/- against the appellant. While recording findings on issue no.1, the Tribunal after perusing the 4 separate clause in the Insurance Cover Note, observed that the owner-driver is covered for personal accident, however, it is limited and the total liability of the insurer shall not in the aggregate exceed the sum of Rs.2 Lakh during any one period of Insurance and the Tribunal upon placing reliance upon a Hon'ble Apex Court's judgment [Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Jhuma Saha and ors.], held that the claim petition is maintainable. On issue no.2, the Tribunal held that the deceased Mangal Singh died to the injuries received in the accident which occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle which was not under his control at the moment. On issue no.3, the Tribunal held that the vehicle was being plied with all valid documents, i.e. registration, fitness and permit on the date of accident and the driver was also having valid and effective driving license on the date of accident. On issue no.4 regarding compensation, the Tribunal held that the vehicle was covered with limited liability upto Rs.2,00,000/- and the vehicle was being plied with all valid papers, hence, the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/-.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the insured/owner had paid the premium for paid driver only and no insurance coverage was taken by the insured/owner of the vehicle under the personal accident coverage policy. It is also the contention that though the deceased was having the valid driving license and relevant papers were also valid on the relevant date and time, but as he was not personally insured under the policy, the insurance company was 5 only liable to pay compensation of ` 2,00,000/- in case paid driver had died in accident.
9. Admittedly, the deceased, who was the owner cum driver of the vehicle, was having valid and effective driving license and was also having all valid papers at the time of accident and the insurance policy was also effective. The deceased was driving its vehicle himself and the vehicle was not being driven by any paid driver. It makes no difference as to who was driving the vehicle, whether it is the owner or any paid driver, as the premium was paid by the insured for driver and not for any particular person. As such, the Tribunal has rightly granted ` 2,00,000/- to the claimants.
10. In the light of aforesaid, this Court is of view that the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal in respect of issue no. 1 is not interferable. As regards the findings recorded by the Tribunal on other issues, this Court is of the opinion that the tribunal has recorded the findings after proper appraisal of evidence and no interference is therefore called for.
11. Consequently, the appeal lacks merit and is dismissed at the threshold.
12. The statutory amount be remitted to the Tribunal concerned, so that the same be released in favour of the claimants.
(Lok Pal Singh, J.) 09.01.2018 Rajni