Punjab-Haryana High Court
The New India Assurance Company Ltd vs Vidha Devi & Others on 30 April, 2012
Author: Jitendra Chauhan
Bench: Jitendra Chauhan
FAO No.1826,1827,1828,1829 & 1830 of 2009 -1-
THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
FAO No.1826 of 2010 and
X-Obj-19-C-II of 2012
In MACT Case No. 72 RBT of 2008
Date of decision: 30.4.2012
1.The New India Assurance Company Ltd. ...Appellant
Versus
Vidha Devi & others ...Respondents
FAO No.1827 of 2010 and
X-Obj-30-C-II of 2010
In MACT Case No. 81 RBT of 2008
Date of decision: 30.4.2012
2..The New India Assurance Company Ltd. ...Appellant
Versus
Shanti Devi & others ...Respondents
FAO No.1828 of 2010 and
X-Obj-31-C-II of 2010
In MACT Case No. 86 RBT of 2008
Date of decision: 30.4.2012
3.The New India Assurance Company Ltd. ...Appellant
Versus
Satya Narain Verma & others ...Respondents
FAO No.1829 of 2010 and
X-Obj-32-C-II of 2010
In MACT Case No. 97 RBT of 2008
Date of decision: 30.4.2012
FAO No.1826,1827,1828,1829 & 1830 of 2009 -2-
4.The New India Assurance Company Ltd. ...Appellant
Versus
Promila & others ...Respondents
FAO No.1830 of 2010 and
X-Obj-33-C-II of 2010
In MACT Case No. 04 RBT of 2009
Date of decision: 30.4.2012
5. The New India Assurance Company Ltd. ...Appellant
Versus
Ram Rati & others ...Respondents
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN
Present:Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate
for the appellant.(In all the appeals)
Ms. Shiwani Verma,Advocate for
Mr. Mani Ram Verma, Advocate
for respondents
Mr. Pankaj Mehta, Advocate for
Cross objectors.
JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (ORAL)
By this single judgment, this Court shall dispose of the aforementioned appeals i.e FAO No. 1826 of 2010 New India Assurance Co. Ltd Vs. Vidya Devi & others; FAO No.1827 of 2010 New India Assurance Company Vs. Shanti Devi; FAO No.1828 of 2010 New India Assurance Co. Ltd Vs. Satya Narain Verma & others FAO No.1829 of 2010 New India Assurance Co. Ltd Vs. Promila and FAO No.1830 New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ram Ratti & others, having arisen out of the same accident FAO No.1826,1827,1828,1829 & 1830 of 2009 -3- that took place on 30.5.2006.
The appellant-Insurance Company has preferred these appeals for setting aside the impugned award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hisar, on 4.12.2009 holding the appellant-Insurance Company liable to pay the compensation to the claimants, jointly and severally and thereafter, recover the same from the owner and driver of the offending vehicle.
Brief facts of the case are that on 30.5.2006 at about 11.30 a.m. Mam Ram, since deceased, along with other occupants was going from Hisar to Hansi in a jeep bearing No. HR-31-A-0283, which was being driven by Kaptan Singh. When the jeep reached near petrol pump of village Mayyar on Hisar- Hansi Road, a Truck trailer bearing registration No. HR-38L/3565 was coming from Hansi side, being driven by Suresh Yadav in a rash and negligent manner hit against the jeep. The driver of the jeep Kaptan Singh being not vigilant, failed to avoid the accident. As a result thereof, the occupants of the jeep received multiple injuries and were removed to CMC, Hisar. Mam Ram, Babu Ram, Narinder and Krishan succumbed to their injuries, whereas Satya Narain received multiple injuries.
The claimants-respondents preferred claim petitions bearing MACT case No.72 of 2008 Vidha Devi & others Vs. Suresh Yadav & others; MACT Case No.81 (RBT) of 2008 Sher Singh & others Vs.. Suresh Yadav & others; MACT Case No 86 (RBT) of 2008 Satya Narain & others Vs. Suresh Yadav & others; MACT FAO No.1826,1827,1828,1829 & 1830 of 2009 -4- Case No.97 (RBT) of 2008 Promila & others Vs. Suresh Yadav & others; MACT Case No.04 (RBT) of 2009 Ram Ratti & others Vs. Suresh Yadav & others before the Motor accident Claims Tribunal Hisar.
From the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal:-
1. Whether the accident resulting death of Mani Ram, Krishan Kumar, Narinder Singg, Baru Ram and injuries to Satya Narain, took place on 30.5.2006 on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 while driving truck trialer No.. HR-38L/3565 and of respondent No.3 while driving offending jeep No. HR 31-A/0283? OPP (reframed).
2.If issue No.1 is proved, whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP
3.Whether the petitioners have no cause or action/locus standi to file the present petition? OPR
4.Whether the petitions are not maintainable in the present form? OPR
5.Whether the respondent No.4. Owner of jeep bearing registration No. HR-31A/0283 has violated terms and conditions of insurance policy, if so to what effect? OPR
6.Relief.
The learned Tribunal has decided the claim FAO No.1826,1827,1828,1829 & 1830 of 2009 -5- petitions on 4.12.2009 holding the appellant- Insurance Company liable to pay the compensation to the claimants, jointly and severally and thereafter recover the same from the owner and driver of the offending vehicle.
Feeling dissatisfied against the impugned award dated 4.12.2009, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Hisar, in all the above claim petitions, the appellant-Insurance Company came up in the present appeal and prays for setting aside the impugned award qua the appellant-Insurance Company. Whereas the claimants-respondents filed X-objections bearing Nos. 19-C-II of 2012, X-Objections-30-C-II of 2010, X-Objection- 31-C-II of 2010, X-Obj-32-C-II of 2010 and X-Obj-33-C-II of 2010 in all the appeals filed by the insurance company.
Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company argued that the deceased were passengers traveling in the jeep insured by the appellant and they were not third party thus they are not covered by the policy of insurance nor under the statutory provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act 1989. He further refers to Ex R-4 Insurance Policy and states that vehicle was insured as private car. The vehicle was being plied for carrying passengers, therefore, for the purpose of insurance of passengers, no policy was issued at all. He further argued that the learned Tribunal erred in directing the appellant to pay the compensation and thereafter recover the same from the driver and owner.
FAO No.1826,1827,1828,1829 & 1830 of 2009 -6-
On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent argued that the offending vehicle was duly insured. However, there was violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy therefore, the Tribunal has rightly directed the Insurance company to pay the compensation at the first instance and thereafter recover it from the owner and driver.
From the perusal of the record it emerges that the insurance policy was only in respect of third party which does not include passengers traveling in the same vehicle. Further it emerges that jeep bearing No. HR-31A-0283 was insured as a private car. The vehicle was carrying more than 12 passengers, thus it is clear that it was being used as a commercial vehicle, contrary to the terms and conditions of the policy. Thus, keeping in view the fact that the vehicle was being used against the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, therefore the Tribunal rightly decided the issue No.5 and held the Insurance Company liable to pay the compensation at first instance and, thereafter recover the same from the owner and driver of the offending vehicle.
Keeping in view the above, the present five appeals filed by the Insurance company are hereby dismissed.
Since the appeals filed by the appellant-Insurance company are dismissed, therefore, now this Court will consider the cross-objections filed by the claimants in the above mentioned appeals. After appraisal of the impugned awards, this Court comes to the conclusion that the income, dependency and FAO No.1826,1827,1828,1829 & 1830 of 2009 -7- multiplier were rightly assessed by the learned Tribunal, keeping in view the age of the deceased persons and claimants and other relevant factors. Cross-objections filed in the five appeals are dismissed having no merit.
30.4.2012 ( JITENDRA CHAUHAN) aarti JUDGE