Patna High Court - Orders
National Insurance Company Ltd. vs Arbind Kumar Jaiswal & Ors on 21 September, 2010
Author: Gopal Prasad
Bench: Gopal Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
M.A. No.257 of 2009
*****
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD PURNEA THROUGH SRI ANJANI
KUMAR A.O. CUM DULY CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY NATIONAL INSURANCE
COMPANY REGIONAL OFFICE 4TH FLOOR SONE BHAWAN B.C. PATEL ROAD
P.O. G.P.O., P.S. SACHIWALAYA PATNA DISTRICT PATNA.
............. (Opp. Party No. 3)................. Appellant
Versus
1. ARBIND KUMAR JAISWAL SON OF YOGENDRA PD.
CHOUDHARY.
.........(Opp. Party No. 1)
2. YOGNEDRA P.D. CHOUDHARY SON OF LATE RAGHU NANDAN
CHOUDHARY. (Opp. Party No. 2) BOTH THE RESIDENT OF BARARI
HAT P.O. GURU BAZAAR P.S. BARARI DISTRTICT KATIHAR.
3. POONAM DEVI WIFE OF RAM KUMAR MEHTA ALIAS RAM KUMAR SINGH
..........(CLAIMANT NO.1).
4. MANOJ KUMAR MEHTA SONOF RAM KUMAR MEHTA ALIAS RAM KUMAR
SINGH ...............MINOR) ....................(CLAIMANT NO. 2).
5. SAROJ KUMAR MEHTA SON OF RAM KUMAR MEHTA ALIAS RAM KUMAR
SINGH..............MINOR)..............................(CLAIMANT NO. 3).
6. POOJA KUMARI DAUGTHTER OF RAM KUMAR MEHTA ALIAS RAM KUMAR
SINGH ...............MINOR) ............ ................ (CLAIMANT NO. 4).
7. PRIYANKA KUMARI DAUGHTER OF RAM KUMAR MEHTA RAM KUMAR
SINGH ............... MINOR) ........................(CLAIMANT NO. 5) MINORS UNDER
THE GUARDIANSHIP OF THEIR MOTHER RESPONDENT NO. 3 ALL
RESIDENTS OF GURU BAZAR KARHAGOLA P.S. BARARI DISTRICT
KATIHAR.
.............RESPONDENTS.
-----------
4 21.09.2010Heard learned counsel for both the parties.
This Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order dated 26.02.2009 passed by the District Judge Motor Vehicles Claims Tribunal- cum-District Judge, Katihar, in M.V. Claim No. 11 of 2006, by which has ordered Insurance Company to pay interim compensation under Section 140 of -2- the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
The Insurance Company has preferred this appeal. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company contended that the tractor was insured but the trailer attached to tractor was not insured but the Tribunal did not consider this aspect and hence Insurance Company not liable to pay compensation for accident by tractor and trailer, the use of trailer which was not insured with the tractor as it is violation.
However, since the tractor is insured and tractor attached with trailer and tractor together constitutes a goods vehicle. The tractor is insured and the case is not of a gratuitous passenger and further the impugned order is interim order under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. However, having regard to the decision reported in 2010 S.C.W., 4918 (Eshwarappa @ Maheshwarappa & Anr. Vs. C.S. Ghrshan Thappa & Anr.). Since the tractor was insured and the impugned order is only an interim order Under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Hence the issue raised may be considered at the final determination of the award under an enquiry under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles -3- Act, 1988, and hence with this observation that the Tribunal shall consider the issue about the fact whether the trailer was insured or not and the effect if trailer is not insured while granting the final compensation. However, I do not feel incline to interfere with impugned order, the Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed.
Learned counsel for the appellant however contended that Rs. 25,000/- deposited as statutory amount be sent down to the Lower Court for realization of the award up to Rs. 50,000/- and rest of the amount shall be paid by the Insurer. However, if the Insurance Company is not liable then Insurance Company may recover the amount.
( Gopal Prasad, J. ) Cp:2/Safik