Madhya Pradesh High Court
National Insurance Company Limited ... vs Vijay Kumar Naidu on 10 December, 2024
Author: Avanindra Kumar Singh
Bench: Avanindra Kumar Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:60611
1 MA-3780-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH
ON THE 10th OF DECEMBER, 2024
MISC. APPEAL No. 3780 of 2022
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED MARHATAL
JABALPUR
Versus
VIJAY KUMAR NAIDU AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Ms.Amrit Ruprah - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Arpan Shrivastava - Advocate for respondent No.1/claimant.
None for respondents No.2 & 3, inspite of service.
ORDER
This appeal has been filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 by the National Insurance Company being aggrieved by the award dated 06/05/2022 in Claim Case No.1105 of 2016 (Vijay Kumar Naidu vs. Manoj Kumar and others), whereby the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.2,81,672/- to the claimant for motor accident dated 11/10/2015.
2. The grounds of the appeal are that there was breach of policy but wrongly held by learned Tribunal that motorcycle purchased on 08/10/2015. Application for registration is made on RTO on 02/11/2015 after depositing registration fee on 27/10/2015, therefore there was breach of Rule 47 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. As per Rule 47 of the Rules, the application for registration of motorcycle has to be made within seven days.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAJESH MAMTANI Signing time: 11-12-2024 12:06:34NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:60611 2 MA-3780-2022 It was further argued by learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company that driving of a motorcycle without registration is an offence punishable under Section 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as there is necessity of registration as per Section 39 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Evidence of Shri Himanshu Gupta (PW-1), Administrative Officer, of the Insurance Company who have been believed to prove the breach of insurance policy.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company submits that learned Tribunal also did not appreciate the testimony of Shri Noyal Startky, Assistant Grade - II, RTO to prove all the evidence, registration charges with RTO Jabalpur. Claimant was himself negligent in driving the motorcycle that has been ignored, therefore finding of contributory negligence should have been given and deduction should have been made.
4. On the other hand, Shri Arpan Shrivastava, learned counsel for the claimant has supported the impugned award.
5. In this case, there is a cross-appeal also filed by the respondent/claimant for enhancement of compensation by Rs.2,00,000/- on the ground that per month income and loss of income for the treatment period has wrongly been determined, therefore seeks enhancement of compensation by Rs.2,00,000/-.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.
7. On perusal of the record and judgment of the trial Court it is seen that on the basis of statement of RTO staff, there was delay in making the Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAJESH MAMTANI Signing time: 11-12-2024 12:06:34 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:60611 3 MA-3780-2022 application for registration of the new vehicle bearing Engine No. JA12ABFGH01780 and Chassis No. MBLJA12ACFGH01263. It is also seen that vehicle was purchased on 07/10/2015 and registration fee was paid on 11/10/2015, therefore, it is not a case where no steps have been taken for registration. Therefore, objection on this ground is not justified and this objection has been correctly dismissed by the trial Court in Para-8 of the impugned award. Another ground is that there was contributory negligence but in this case, appellant has been hit by the opposite vehicle Driver-Manoj (non-applicant) who was ex-parte before the Tribunal, therefore negligence of the appellant- Vijay Kumar Naidu cannot be established without statement of Manoj Kumar who was driving the offending new vehicle therefore, this ground also fails.
8. On perusal of Ex.D/5 sale letter dated 27/10/2015, it is seen that vehicle was purchased on 08/10/2015 and Insurance Policy for the period of 08/10/2015 to 07/10/2016, therefore vehicle was being driven after insurance was done. Although all the formalities after depositing the amount has been subsequently done and registration was completed on 09/11/2015. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, Insurance Company cannot be exonerated from payment of compensation amount.
9. In the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Sushil Kumar Godara, 2021 ACJ 2673, wherein three Judges of Hon'ble Supreme Court held that insurance company was liable as there was fundamental breach of policy. That case was related to the theft of vehicle which was purchased and was temporary registered which expired on 19/07/2011. On 28/07/2011 Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAJESH MAMTANI Signing time: 11-12-2024 12:06:34 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:60611 4 MA-3780-2022 vehicle was stolen. Insurance Company objected the claim before before District Consumer Forum on the ground that registration had expired. State Commission observed that insurance company issued the policy on the basis of engine and chassis numbers and he cannot be denied the claim on technical ground. National Commission in revision petition affirmed the findings of State Commission but the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that insurance company was liable as it was fundamental breach of policy but it was a case of theft of vehicle whereas in the appeal before this Court it is the third party claim for injury.
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Balakrishnan, (2013) 1 SCC 731 wherein owner or gratuitous passenger travelling in motor vehicle met with an accident, regarding accident compensation, there was dispute whether it was 'Act Policy' or a 'comprehensive policy' in which corresponding passenger/owner risk should be covered but again this case is different from the case in appeal before this Court as in this case, driver (non-applicant) of opposite vehicle hit the claimant vehicle.
11. In Chandaram vs. Swapnil and others , 2014 ACJ 2665, the question was about expiry of registration of lifetime. Motorcycle was insured under payment of lifetime premium against statutory third party risk with the endorsement 'to the cancellation of registration' therefore, this case is again different.
12. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Kamal Kishore and others , 2020 ACJ 176, the High Court of Himachal Pradesh was dealing with a case Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAJESH MAMTANI Signing time: 11-12-2024 12:06:34 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:60611 5 MA-3780-2022 wherein vehicle was not registered with registration number but policy issued on the basis of engine number and chassis number as no connection between cause of accident and registration/non-registration of the vehicle as held by Hon'ble High Court that then third party liability cannot be avoided.
13. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is hereby rejected
14. In cross-appeal, the claimant has been sought enhancement of compensation by Rs.2,00,000/-.
15. On perusal of Ex.P/30 it is seen that appellant has sustained 34% permanent disability in right hand. The learned Tribunal, as per Para 22 of the award, under the head of medical expenses Rs.5437/-, for attendant expenses Rs. 5,000/-, for special diet Rs.5,000/-, for pain & suffering Rs.25,000/- and for future expenses Rs.1,92,301/-; in total compensation of Rs.2,81,672/- has been awarded.
16. It is also seen that in determining the compensation the Tribunal has taken permanent disability of the appellant @ 15% whereas in the certificate the same was 34%, therefore, this Court is of the view that in spite of 15%, permanent disability should have been taken as 20% by the learned Tribunal.
17. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the cross- appeal of the claimant is partly allowed and the amount under the head of permanent disability, medical expenses and special diet is enhanced by Rs.65,000/- (Rupees Sixty Five Thousand only) on lumpsum basis in the interest of justice. However, the other terms and conditions in the award of Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAJESH MAMTANI Signing time: 11-12-2024 12:06:34 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:60611 6 MA-3780-2022 the Tribunal including rate of interest are kept intact.
18. It is made clear that the enhanced amount shall be payable only after payment of requisite court fee.
(AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH) JUDGE RM Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAJESH MAMTANI Signing time: 11-12-2024 12:06:34