Madhya Pradesh High Court
Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd. vs Antar Singh And 3 Ors. on 30 January, 2024
Author: Hirdesh
Bench: Hirdesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 30 th OF JANUARY, 2024
MISC. APPEAL No. 1704 of 2011
BETWEEN:-
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(SHRI SUDHIR V.DANDWATE, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
APPELLANT).
AND
1. ANTAR SINGH AND 3 ORS. S/O HIRALAL, AGED
ABOUT 50 YEARS, GRAM.PANDI P.S.BHONRASA
TEH.SONKKHURD DISTT.DEWAS (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. SMT. KRISHNABAI W/O ANTAR SING H, AGED
ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION: NIL GRAM
PANDI, P.S. BHONRASA, TEH. TONKKHURD DIST.
DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. PREMNARAYAN S/O MOTILAL OCCUPATION:
DRIVER BHAMORI P.S. GORATGANT DIST
RAISEN (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. SMT. JAGJIT KAUR W/O RAJENDRASINGH KAUR
OCCUPATION: ALPHA BUNGALOW, IDGAHA
HILLS BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. BRANCH MANAGER ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.
LTD. 1, PATWARDHAN MARG DEWAS (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI ANUPAM BHATELE, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT
[R-2].
SHRI SUDARSHAN PANDIT, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
RESPONDENT NO.5)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 2/2/2024
10:05:32 AM
2
T h is appeal coming on for orders this day, t h e cou rt passed the
following:
ORDER
This appeal by the Insurance Company under section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act is arising out of the award dated 06.05.2011 passed by IInd Additional Member, MACT, Dewas in Claim Case No.75/2011 seeking exoneration from its liability.
2. Brief facts of the case are that claimant/respondents No.1 & 2 preferred an application before the Tribunal alleging that in the intervening night of 31.12.2009 and 01.01.2010 deceased Pankaj was going on his motorcycle from Naveri Phata to Bhonrosa and when he reached Patel Dhaba on Indore- Bhopal Road, truck bearing No.MP-04-K-3610 which was driven rashly and negligently by respondent No.3, owned by respondent No.4 and allegedly insured with respondent No.5 dashed the motorcycle due to which he suffered grievous injuries and died. It was averred that deceased was running grocery and pan shop and earning Rs.10000/- per month, therefore, claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.21.50 lakhs.
3. Respondent No.3 & 4 proceeded ex-parte before the Tribunal whereas respondent No.5 denied the insurance alleging that cheque given towards premium was dishonored and since policy stood cancelled prior to the date of accident, therefore, they are not liable.
4. Appellant filed its written statement denying the allegations and further averred that date of accident is intervening night of 31.12.2009 and 01.01.2010 whereas policy was made effective on 01.01.2009 to 31.12.2010, therefore, at the time of accident, policy was not in force.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of both the parties, Tribunal framed Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR NAIR Signing time: 2/2/2024 10:05:32 AM 3 issues and after taking evidence the claim was allowed and a compensation of Rs.2,44,000/- was awarded in favour of the claimants and against the appellant/insurance company.
6. Being aggrieved by the impugned award, insurance company has filed this appeal by submitting that Tribunal has not considered the evidence minutely whereas it has specifically came on record that deceased was declared dead at 12.15 a.m on 01.01.2010 and deceased was brought from Naveri Phata to the hospital. Thus, accident occurred prior to 12.15 a.m and since policy was made effective from 01.01.2010, therefore, no liability could have been fastened on the appellant, hence prays for exoneration of the appellant from its liability.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation and fixed the liability and no interference is called for in the impugned award in this appeal.
7. In the case of Dulari Singh and others Vs. Tribhuvan Murari Dubey and another, 2010 (4) MPLJ, Note 10 , it is held that it is the duty of the insurance company to prove that owner and driver of the vehicle breached terms and conditions of the insurance policy. On perusal of the record of the Tribunal it is found that appellant has not adduced any evidence before the Tribunal to prove that owner and driver breached the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and he has not adduced the certified copy of the insurance policy before the tribunal, therefore, the insurance company has not produced any evidence in this regard.
8. I have gone through the record and found that in the Naksha Lash Panchayatnama Ex.P/4, the date and time was mentioned as 01.01.2010 in the night 12.15 a.m. In the First Information Report Ex.P/1 also, the date of accident is mentioned as 01.01.2010 in the night at 01.00 a.m. In the evidence of Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR NAIR Signing time: 2/2/2024 10:05:32 AM 4 Devnarayan AW/2 it is clearly stated that in the mid night of 31.12.2009 and 01.01.2010 the accident had occurred and the deceased died in the accident. Thus, considering the evidence available on record it is clearly established that the death had occurred on 01.01.2010 at 12.15 a.m. However, counsel for the insurance company has misinterpreted the time mentioned in the Naksha Lash Panchayatnama Ex.P/4.
9. In view of the above, in the considered opinion of this Court, tribunal has not committed any error in allowing the claim petition and fastening the liability on the appellant/insurance company, therefore, no interference is called for in the impugned award.
10. Thus, the appeal being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed.
(HIRDESH) JUDGE hk/ Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR NAIR Signing time: 2/2/2024 10:05:32 AM