Patna High Court - Orders
The Branch Manager National Insurance ... vs Janaki Devi & Ors on 14 May, 2014
Author: Amaresh Kumar Lal
Bench: Amaresh Kumar Lal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Appeal No.445 of 2012
======================================================
The Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd., Chapra Branch
Represented through its Chief Regional Manager and the Constituted
Attorney, Regional Office, National Insurance Co. Ltd. 4th Floor, Sone
Bhawan, Birchand Patel Marg, P.S. Sachivalaya, Distt. Patna
.... .... Appellant/s
Versus
1. Janaki Devi, W/O Late Dineshwar Yadav @ Bhola Rai, R/O Village -
Fulchak, Chirand, P.S. Doriganj, Distt. - Saran at Chapra.
2. Saroj Prasad Yadav, S/O Nageshwar Rai, R/O Village - Balwan Tola
Kotwar Patti Rampur, P.S. Doriganj, Distt. - Saran at Chapra.
3. Sunita Devi, W/O Ranjay Rai, D/O Late Dineshwar Rai @ Bhola Rai
R/O Village - Mabarakpur, P.S. Garkha, Distt. - Saran at Chapra.
4. Babloo Rai, S/O Late Dineshwar Rai @ Bhola Rai R/O Village -
Fulchak Chirand, P.S. Doriganj, Distt. - Saran at Chapra
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Raj Kumar Singh Vikram, Advocate
For the Respondent 2 : Mr. Anant Kumar Bhaskar, Advocate
: Dr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL
ORAL ORDER
8 14-05-2014I.A.No.4966 of 2013 has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay in filing the appeal.
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for respondent no.2. Other respondents have not appeared even after service of notice.
For the reasons mentioned in the limitation petition, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
I.A.No.4966 of 2013 is allowed.
The insurer of the offending vehicle Truck bearing Patna High Court MA No.445 of 2012 (8) dt.14-05-2014 2/4 registration no.UP-60E-2455 has preferred this appeal against the judgment and award dated 1.12.2011 passed by the learned 2nd Additional District Judge-cum-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Saran at Chapra in Claim Case No.50/2008 by which the appellant has been directed to pay the amount of compensation with interest.
The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that it appears from para 3 of the impugned judgment that the name of owner of the Truck has been mentioned as Pawan Kumar Singh, son of Rameshwar Singh and Jitendra Kumar Singh, son of Ramchandra Singh, but they have not been made party. He has further submitted that in paragraph 13 of the impugned judgment, it has been held that the owner of the vehicle has not been able to discharge the terms and conditions of the policy by allowing the vehicle by a person having proper licence to drive the vehicle, although there has been statement of this fact, but no finding has been made by the learned Tribunal.
The learned counsel for the respondent no.2 has submitted that it appears from the impugned judgment that Saroj Prasad Yadav, respondent no.2 has been made a party in the claim case, whereas, the name of the owner of the Truck has been mentioned in paragraph 3 as Pawan Kumar Singh, son of Rameshwar Singh and Jitendra Kumar Singh, son of Ramchandra Patna High Court MA No.445 of 2012 (8) dt.14-05-2014 3/4 Singh, resident of village-Majhwa Veldi, District- Balia, U.P. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the impugned judgment, it appears that the registration of the vehicle has been marked as Ext.5 showing the name of owner as Pawan Kumar Singh, son of Rameshwar Singh and Jitendra Kumar Singh, son of Ramchandra Singh, resident of village-Majhwa Veldi, District- Balia, U.P. It further appears that the violation of the terms and conditions of the policy by the owner of the vehicle has been discussed in paragraph 13 of the impugned judgment, but no finding has been made by the learned Tribunal in this regard. The learned Tribunal is required to give finding on this point. The quantum of the compensation has not been challenged by any of the parties.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, the impugned judgment is not fit to be sustained as it stands. It is set aside except the quantum of compensation. The matter is remanded to the learned Tribunal to consider the matter afresh and give finding regarding the violation of the terms and conditions of the policy and in case of violation of the terms and conditions of the policy of the offending vehicle, who will be liable to pay the amount of compensation.
It is admitted fact that the offending vehicle has been Patna High Court MA No.445 of 2012 (8) dt.14-05-2014 4/4 insured by the appellant, as such, the appellant is directed to pay the amount of compensation with interest as directed by the learned Tribunal to the claimant-respondent no.1 within a period of two months.
In case, it is held that the owner of the vehicle has violated the terms and conditions of the policy, it will be open to the insurer of the offending vehicle to get the amount recovered from the owner of the vehicle.
With this observation and direction, this appeal is allowed.
Let the statutory amount deposited in this Court be sent to the learned Tribunal in favour of Janki Devi, claimant- respondent no.1 for payment/adjustment in the amount of compensation, as prayed for on behalf of the appellant.
(Amaresh Kumar Lal, J) V.K. Pandey/-