Jharkhand High Court
United India Insurance Co Ltd vs Sukhni Devi & Ors on 20 March, 2009
Equivalent citations: AIR 2009 JHARKHAND 127, 2009 (2) AIR JHAR R 861, (2009) 2 JCR 421 (JHA), (2010) 1 ACC 367, (2009) 3 TAC 158, (2009) 4 ACJ 2545
Author: M.Y. Eqbal
Bench: M.Y.Eqbal, Jaya Roy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.A. No. 41 of 2008
----
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. ... Appellant
-Versus-
Sukhni Mahto & ors Respondents
----
with
Cross Objection No.8 of 2009
Sanatan Hansda Manjhi @ Sanatan Hansda... Cross Objector
-Versus-
M/s United India Insurance Co.Ltd. & ors.... .... Respondents
----
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.Y.EQBAL
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE JAYA ROY
----
For the Appellant : Mr. Alok Lal
For the Respondents : M/s. Jai Prakash & P.Chatterjee
----
Date of CAV 18.3.2009 Date of pronouncement: 20.3.2009
----
8- 20.3.2009 This appeal by the appellant-Insurance Company is directed
against the judgment and award dated 29th September, 2007 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhanbad in Title (M.V) Suit No.169/2004, whereby he has awarded compensation of Rs.2,49,500/- and directed the appellant-Insurance Company to pay the said amount.
2. The claimants-respondents filed the aforementioned case for grant of compensation on account of death of Ramnath Mahto in a motor vehicle accident. According to the claimants on the relevant date of accident the deceased was feeling pain in abdomen and he was going for his treatment along with his brother and other villagers at Bokaro Hospital by a Ambassador Car No.JH 10D 2510. The said ambassador car on the way dashed against a tree because of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the car, as a result of which the deceased Ramnath Mahto died on the spot inside the car.
3. The defendant-respondent, who is the owner of he vehicle, fled written statement stating that the car was insured with the appellant-United India Insurance Company and, therefore, the 2 owner has no liability to pay the compensation amount rather the insurance company is liable to pay compensation, if awarded by the tribunal.
4. On the other hand, the appellant-Insurance Company contested the case by filing written statement stating inter alia that at the relevant time the ambassador car was insured as a private vehicle but the same was used as a commercial vehicle inasmuch as the deceased was traveiling in the said ambassador car on payment of hire. The insurance company is, therefore, not liable to pay compensation.
5. The Tribunal, on the basis of pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues:
"1) Is the suit, as framed, maintainable?
2) Whether the deceased Ram Nath Mahato died due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle in question having registration No.JH-10D-2510 on P.O. at the time of the occurrence?
3) Whether the claimants are entitled to the compensation amount as claimed?
6. The Tribunal held that the deceased died due to rash and negligent driving of he vehicle in question at the relevant time and the driver had valid and effective licence and, therefore, the insurance company is liable to pay compensation.
7. Mr. Alok Lal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, assailed the impugned judgment and award as being illegal and wholly without jurisdiction. Learned counsel submitted that admitted case of the claimants was that the vehicle was taken on hire on payment of Rs.1000/- from the owner of the car and the same has been substantiated by evidence. In spite of that the tribunal neither framed any issue nor recorded any finding with regard to liability of the insurance company . The tribunal simply held that since the vehicle was insured, the insurance company is 3 liable to pay compensation. We find force in the submission of the learned counsel.
8. The claimants filed documentary evidence including the FIR, Ext.1, which was lodged by the brother of the deceased. In the FIR it was very specifically mentioned that ambassador car was taken on hire for going to Bokaro hospital. In evidence PW 1 , widow of the deceased, deposed that the ambassador car was taken on hire on payment of Rs.1000/-. The insurance company in para 11 of he written statement took a specific defence that at the relevant time the vehicle was used as a commercial vehicle although it was insured as a private car and, therefore, the insurance company has no liability. Surprisingly, the owner of the vehicle in his written statement has not denied the assertion made by the claimants as also the insurance company that the vehicle ws taken on hire by the claimants. In spite of that the tribunal has neither framed any issue nor recorded any finding with regard to liability of the insurance company. Simply the tribunal held that the deceased died due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle in question and the driver has a valid and effective licence. So the insurance company is liable to pay compensation. In our considered opinion, the finding arrived at by the Tribunal is absolutely erroneous in law.
9. As noticed above, the vehicle was taken on hire by the claimants for going to Bokaro hospital and on the way the vehicle met with an accident. Admittedly, the vehicle was insured as a private car and not as a commercial vehicle. Hence the insurance company has no liability for payment of compensation.
10. Hence, this appeal is allowed and the finding of the tribunal holding the insurance company liable to pay compensation is set aside. It is held that the respondent-owner of the vehicle is liable to pay the compensation amount assessed by the Tribunal. 4
11. In the result, this appeal is allowed with the aforesaid observation and direction and the cross objection filed by the owner of the vehicle is disallowed.
(M.Y. Eqbal, J. )
Jaya Roy,J: (Jaya Roy,J.)
Pandey/AFR