Recently, the Jharkhand High Court, while partly allowing an appeal filed by the insurance company, held that mere discrepancy in policy number or absence of postmortem report cannot absolve the insurer from liability under a valid claim, particularly when the accident and resultant death are well established by oral and documentary evidence.
Brief Facts:
The present appeal was filed by Reliance General Insurance Company Limited against the judgment and award dated 29.07.2016 passed by the Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal, Pakur, in M.A.C.T. Case No. 01 of 2012, whereby a compensation of ₹20,49,000 was awarded in favour of the claimants – the wife and children of the deceased, Lakhichand Maraiya, who died in a motor vehicle accident on 26.06.2010. The deceased, a skilled carpenter earning ₹9,000 per month, was fatally injured when a Tata Magic vehicle (bearing registration no. JH-15D-8316) hit him while he was en route to the market. A case was registered, and a charge-sheet was later filed against the driver of the offending vehicle. The insurance company challenged the award, raising objections on multiple grounds including procedural lapses and questions over liability.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-insurance company contended that the Tribunal erred in passing the award despite the insurance policy presented being incorrect. It was argued that due to failure of the claimants to produce the valid policy and the absence of proper charge-sheet under relevant sections, the accident and consequent liability could not be conclusively established. It was also urged that in the absence of a postmortem report, the causal link between the accident and death was unproven.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.8, the owner of the vehicle, submitted that all documents submitted, including the insurance policy, were genuine and valid. It was further contended that the insurance company failed to produce the correct policy themselves and that the burden of doing so lay with them. The respondents maintained that the accident did take place and was followed by proper investigation, culminating in a charge-sheet against the driver. It was argued that minor technicalities such as wrong policy number or omission of certain penal provisions in the charge-sheet cannot negate the substantive claim of compensation.
Observations of the Court:
The Court, after considering the record and rival submissions, observed that although the appeal was filed with a delay of 159 days, the delay was condoned taking a lenient view, noting the internal procedural requirements of the insurance company. On merits, the Court found that the Tribunal had rightly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence produced by the claimants. The testimony of C.W.1, C.W.2, and C.W.3 corroborated the occurrence of the accident, the occupation and income of the deceased, and his subsequent death. Although no postmortem was conducted, the Court accepted the Tribunal’s reasoning that the same could not be held against the claimants, especially when the police had registered an FIR and submitted a charge-sheet against the offending driver.
The Court also referred to precedents, including Branch Manager, New India Assurance Co. v. Nakul Sah (2002), where it was held that an adverse inference can be drawn if the insurance company fails to produce the policy despite claimants providing its number. It was noted that the minor mistake in quoting the wrong policy number did not absolve the insurer from liability, especially when they failed to bring on record the correct policy. With regard to negligence, the Court held that even if the charge-sheet did not invoke specific sections, the fact of death and the police report were sufficient to presume rash and negligent driving. The insurance company failed to discharge its burden of rebutting this presumption. However, the Court accepted the appellant’s submission regarding incorrect application of the multiplier. In light of the Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009), the correct multiplier applicable to a 34-year-old deceased was 16, not 17. Accordingly, the award was modified only to that extent.
The decision of the Court:
The Court modified the award by reducing the multiplier from 17 to 16. The rest of the award was upheld. The appeal was disposed of with the direction that the statutory amount deposited by the insurance company be transmitted to the Tribunal for adjustment against the modified award.
Case Title: Reliance General Insurance Company Limited vs. Lilmuni Madaiyan @ Lilmuni Madyan and Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Case No: M.A. No. 202 of 2017
Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. Sahay Gaurav Piyush
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel
Picture Source :
