Allahabad High Court
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Prem Lal Saroj And Anr. on 1 May, 2024
Author: Vipin Chandra Dixit
Bench: Vipin Chandra Dixit
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:78315
Court No. - 9
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 354 of 2015
Appellant :- Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Respondent :- Prem Lal Saroj And Anr.
Counsel for Appellant :- Sushil Kumar Mehrotra
Counsel for Respondent :- Ram Singh,Amit Kumar Sinha,Deepali Srivastava Sinha
Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.
Heard Sri S.K. Mehrotra, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Amit Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of claimant-respondent no.1 and perused the record.
This first appeal from order has been filed by the appellant Insurance Company against the judgment and award dated 5.11.2014 passed by M.A.C.T./Additional District Judge, Court No.19, Allahabad in M.A.C.P. No.230 of 2003 (Prem Lal Saroj Vs. Gulab Singh and another) by which compensation of Rs.3,16,500/- along with 7% interest has been awarded in favour of claimant on account of death of Ashwani Kumar @ Santosh Kumar aged about 19 years.
The cross appeal/cross objection has been filed by claimant-respondent no.1 for enhancement of compensation. As per report of Stamp Reporter, there is delay of 290 days in filing the cross appeal/cross objection. No application for condonation of delay has been filed by the claimant-respondent.
The cross appeal/objection is dismissed as barred by time.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the deceased was pillion rider on the insured motorcycle and risk of pillion rider was not covered under the insurance policy and the Claims Tribunal has erred in fixing the liability upon the appellant Insurance Company being insurer of motorcycle. It is further submitted that as per site plan, it was head-on collision in between motorcycle and truck and in any case both the vehicles were equally responsible for the accident but nothing has been deducted in terms of contributory negligence of motorcyclist.
On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of claimant-respondent no.1 submits that the Insurance Company has not raised any objection before the Claims Tribunal regarding non-coverage of pillion rider under the policy and the claim petition was filed under Section 163A of Motor Vehicles Act and as such the claimant is not required to plead or prove the rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle.
Considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The specific issue no.4 was framed by the Claims Tribunal regarding insurance of motorcycle. The Claims Tribunal after considering the evidence adduced by the parties has recorded the finding that the vehicle was duly insured with the appellant Insurance Company. The Claims Tribunal has further recorded the finding that the Insurance Company has failed to produce any evidence that there was breach of any terms and conditions of insurance policy. The issue of non-coverage of pillion rider of motorcycle was not pleaded by the Insurance Company before the Claims Tribunal as such it is not open to the Insurance Company to deny the claim on the ground of non-coverage of pillion rider under the insurance policy. So far as the negligence of other vehicle is concerned, the claim petition itself was filed under Section 163A of Motor Vehicles Act and the claimant is not required to plead or establish the rash and negligence of insured vehicle, only the involvement of vehicle is required to be proved. No other ground has been pressed by learned counsel for the appellant.
No ground for interference is made out. The first appeal from order is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.
The first appeal from order is dismissed, accordingly.
Interim order, if any, stands discharged.
Order Date :- 1.5.2024
Kpy
