Recently, the Jharkhand High Court, while partly allowing an appeal filed by the insurer, held that technical objections such as policy number mismatch or absence of postmortem report cannot defeat a rightful claim for compensation where the accident and resultant death are otherwise proved.
Brief Facts:
The appellant, Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, filed an appeal against the judgment passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal which awarded ₹20,49,000 to the claimants, being the widow and children of the deceased, Lakhichand Maraiya, who died in a road accident. A Tata Magic hit the deceased and a case was registered under Sections 279, 337, 338 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). A charge-sheet was submitted against the driver. The appellant-insurer challenged the award on several grounds including non-production of the correct insurance policy and lack of postmortem.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the claimants furnished an incorrect policy number, and the correct policy was not produced before the Tribunal. On this ground, it was argued that the Tribunal wrongly fastened liability on the insurer. It was further submitted that the charge-sheet did not cite the appropriate penal provisions, casting doubt on the occurrence of a motor accident.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel for respondent no.8, the owner of the vehicle, argued that all documents submitted were genuine and valid, including the insurance policy. It was contended that the accident did take place and a charge-sheet was submitted after investigation. It was further submitted that non-inclusion of certain penal sections in the charge-sheet or absence of postmortem cannot negate the established facts of the accident and resultant death.
Observations of the Court:
The Court observed that the accident, death, and charge-sheet were well established by both oral and documentary evidence. It noted that merely providing a wrong policy number by the claimants, liability of the insurance company cannot be ruled out, and that it was the duty of the insurer to produce the correct policy if it disputed the one relied upon. Relying on Branch Manager, New India Assurance Co. v. Nakul Sah and Others (2002), the Court affirmed that an adverse inference may be drawn against the insurer if it fails to produce the correct policy despite the number being provided by the claimant.
As regards the postmortem, the Court held that the absence of a postmortem cannot be attributed to the claimants and referred to a precedent where the Tribunal held that such absence cannot negate the occurrence of death by accident. It was also held that “the insurance company has not produced any evidence to establish that the accident had not taken place due to rash and negligent driving.”
The Court found no reason to interfere with the Tribunal's factual findings on the occurrence of the accident or negligence. However, it noted that the Tribunal erred in applying a multiplier of 17 for the deceased who was 34 years old at the time of death. Referring to the court’s decision in Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. (2009), the Court corrected the multiplier to 16.
The decision of the Court:
The Court partly allowed the appeal by modifying the compensation awarded by applying a multiplier of 16 instead of 17. The rest of the award was upheld. The statutory amount deposited by the insurer was directed to be transmitted to the Tribunal for adjustment against the revised 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 :
