Patna High Court - Orders
Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. ... vs Om Prakash Rai & Ors. on 16 January, 2014
Author: Amaresh Kumar Lal
Bench: Amaresh Kumar Lal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Appeal No.632 of 2009
======================================================
Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd, Sudarshan Building,
Municipal Chowk, Chapra, P. O.- Chapra Town, P.S.- Chapra Nagar,
District- Saran ( Insurer of Truck bearingNo. BR-04A-8861).
Opposite Party No. 2.... .... Appellant/s
Versus
1. Om Prakash Rai @ Ram Prakash Rai, son of Dharmnath Rai
2. Sonu Kumar, son of Om Prakash Rai @ Ram Prakash Rai
3. Bindu Kumari, daughter of Om Prakash Rai @ Ram Prakash Rai
Respondent No. 2 and 3 are minor son & daughter respectively
represented through their father Ram Prakash Rai as legal guardian.
All are residence of village- Sashana, P. O.- Sahajitpur, P.S.- Baniapur, at
present Janta Bazar, District- Saran.
.. Claimants
4. Arun Kumar Singh s/o Seo Govind Singh, resident of village- Pipra, P.
S.- Baniapur, District- Saran, owner of Truck bearing No. B.R.-04A-8861).
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Prakash Kumar, Adv
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Birendra Nath Misha, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL
ORAL ORDER
6 16-01-2014I. A. No 7240 of 2009.
This application under Section 5 of Limitation Act has been filed for condonation of delay of 71 days in filing this appeal.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3.
It appears that sufficient reasons have been shown for condonation of delay. Accordingly, delay is condoned.
This application is allowed.
M. A. No. 632 of 2009 The Insurer- appellant has preferred this appeal against Patna High Court MA No.632 of 2009 (6) dt.16-01-2014 2/5 the judgment and award dated 4.5.2009 and 16.5.2009 respectively passed by learned 1st Additional District Judge-cum- Claims Tribunal, Saran at Chapra in MACT Case No. 68 of 2003 by which the appellant has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,92,000/- with interest @ 6 per cent per annum from the presentation of claim case till its realization within two months from the date of this order.
The claim of the claimant is that on 3.5.2003 at about 8 A.M., the deceased was going to attend marriage ceremony on a motor cycle which was dashed by a truck bearing registration No. B.R. 04A-8861, due to which the deceased fell from the motorcycle and seriously injured. She was brought to the hospital where she died during treatment. On the statement of Pravawati Devi, Chapra (M) P. S. Case No. 171 of 2003 was registered for the offence under Sections 279/337/338/304(A) of IPC. The deceased was employed as a teacher in Bal Vikash Manas Kendra School, Sisai and was earning Rs.4000/- per month. The claimants are husband, minor son and minor daughter of the deceased. The insurer of the offending vehicle appeared and contested the matter. Thereafter, the impugned order has been passed as aforesaid.
The grievance of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company- appellant is that claim petition as framed is not Patna High Court MA No.632 of 2009 (6) dt.16-01-2014 3/5 maintainable. The claimants have got no cause of action. The venue and manner of accident are denied. No particulars about the deceased and vehicle have been furnished by the claimants according to Section 134(C) of the M. V. Act. There is violation of policy condition under Section 149 (2) of the M. V. Act. The owner may be directed to furnish route permit, driving licence, fitness certificate, insurance policy and registration document. The Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation, if the driving licence is false and route permit is not valid. The income and occupation of the deceased are denied. The amount of compensation is excessive. All these objections were raised but the owner has not produced driving licence so that the Insurance Company could not verify it. There is violation of terms of policy as such the Insurance Company is not held liable to pay the amount of compensation.
Learned counsel for respondent-claimant has submitted that respondent no. 4 is owner of offending vehicle who appeared and filed written statement stating therein that the claim petition as framed is not maintainable and it is wrong to say that the driver was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. In fact, accident took place due to sudden failure of break of the vehicle. Lastly, it was stated that the offending vehicle was under valid insurance Patna High Court MA No.632 of 2009 (6) dt.16-01-2014 4/5 with the appellant- National Insurance Company, so the insurer is liable to pay the entire amount of compensation to the claimant, if any.
He has further submitted that both Insurance Company and the owner have raised their objection in their written statement that the claimants are not entitled to get any amount of compensation. Learned Tribunal has considered the pleadings on behalf of both the parties and also the evidence adduced by the claimants. The Insurance Company has not adduced any evidence nor has been able to prove that there has been any violation of conditions of Insurance Policy. The appellant has also not been able to prove that the driver of the offending vehicle had no valid licence, as such this Court is not required to interfere with the impugned order.
After hearing learned counsel for the appellant and claimants-respondents, it is apparent from paragraph 3 of the impugned judgment that owner of the offending vehicle as well as Insurance Company have raised their objection against non- maintainability of the claim case and it has been specifically stated by the Insurance Company that the driver had no valid licence. Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation, if the driving licence is false and route permit is not valid. The Patna High Court MA No.632 of 2009 (6) dt.16-01-2014 5/5 occupation of the deceased has also been denied. The Insurance Company did not produce any evidence before the Claim Tribunal in support of its contention. Insurance of the vehicle has been accepted by the appellant. The appellant failed to prove that owner of the vehicle has violated any terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy.
Considering the facts and circumstances, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. This appeal is dismissed.
The statutory amount deposited by the appellant be remitted to the Tribunal for making payment to the claimants.
Both the parties will bear their own costs.
(Amaresh Kumar Lal, J) Kanchan/-