Punjab-Haryana High Court
Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs Banto Devi And Ors. on 8 February, 2006
Equivalent citations: III(2006)ACC573
Author: Viney Mittal
Bench: Viney Mittal
JUDGMENT Viney Mittal, J.
1. This order shall dispose of a bunch of 21 appeals. All the appeals have been filed by Oriental Insurance Company Limited and have arisen out of a common award dated December 4, 1996.
2. An accident occurred on April 14, 1994 at about 8.30 a.m. in the area of Village Pundrak when Bus No. DBP 904 being driven by Hardayal Singh fell into a canal. On account of the aforesaid fact several passengers in the Bus were killed and many others were injured.
3. The dependents of the deceased persons and injured, themselves filed claim petitions before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal, (for short 'the Tribunal'). AH the claim petitions were consolidated by the learned Tribunal for trial. A common plea taken by the claimants in all the petitions was that Hardayal Singh driver of the Bus was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently and at a very fast speed. He was repeatedly asked by the passengers (members of the marriage party) to drive it slowly but he did not pay any heed to the aforesaid request. Ultimately when crossing the canal, in the area of village Pundrak, the driver could not control the Bus because of its high speed and as a result thereof the Bus fell in the canal resulting into the death/injury of the occupants.
4. The learned Tribunal on the basis of the evidence available on the record found it as a fact that the driver of the offending vehicle was driving the Bus rashly and negligently. Consequently, it was held that the claimants were entitled to compensation. A plea was taken by the Insurance Company before the Tribunal that there were violations and breach of the terms of the policy. It was claimed that the Bus was overloaded and further that the Bus was being driven outside Delhi area, for which the bus was not carrying the requisite permit. The Insurance Company attempted to avoid its liability by taking the aforesaid plea. Both the aforesaid contentions were duly considered by the Tribunal, but rejected. It was held that no evidence had been led by the Insurance Company to come to the conclusion that the Bus in question was overloaded. It was further held that merely because the Bus in question was carrying the passengers outside the Delhi area, in violation of the route permit, would not absolve the Insurance Company of its liability. Consequently, the claim petitions filed by the claimants were allowed and different compensation was assessed in each case.
5. The Oriental Insurance Company has now filed the present appeals challenging the award of the learned Tribunal and its liability.
6. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and with their assistance has also gone through the record of the case.
7. The arguments which were raised by the Insurance Company before the learned Tribunal have been reiterated before this Court as well in the present appeals. It has been argued that the Bus was overloaded and, therefore, the occupants were themselves to blame, when an accident had occurred. It has also been claimed that since the Bus in question was travelling beyond the area for which the route permit had been granted, therefore, it was an unauthorised travel and, therefore, the Insurance Company was not liable.
8. I have duly considered the aforesaid contentions of the learned Counsel for the appellant but find myself unable to agree with the same.
9. In para 9 of the Award of the learned Tribunal has specifically noticed the aforesaid two contentions. It has been noticed that although the plea was taken by the Insurance Company that the Bus was over loaded but no evidence to support the aforesaid plea had been led by it. Consequently, it has been held that a mere plea taken by the Insurance Company, without any evidence in support thereof, could not be accepted. It has also been noticed that simply because the Bus in question had been approved for plying within the area of Delhi and it was being driven outside Delhi, would not be a ground to absolve the Insurance Company of its liability.
10. I do not find any justification to differ with the reasoning adopted by the learned Tribunal.
11. Nothing has been pointed out by the learned Counsel, during the course of arguments, that the learned Tribunal has taken any view contrary to the record. A vague attempt has been made by the learned Counsel to rely upon FIR, which was required on account of the accident. In my considered view, the narration of some facts in the aforesaid FIR cannot advance the case of the appellant Insurance Company in any manner in the absence of any evidence led by the Insurance Company. The pleas taken by the Insurance Company before the Tribunal cannot be accepted as no evidence in support thereof was led.
12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in the present Appeals. The same are consequently dismissed.