The Manager,United India ... vs Smt.Anusayabai Wd/O Vaikuntha ...
2015 Latest Caselaw 147 Bom

                                   1                                  fa387.03.odt




                                                                             
                                                     
         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

                         NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR




                                                    
                      FIRST APPEAL NO.387 OF 2003




                                       
     The Manager,     
     United India Insurance Company Limited,
     Nagpur-440 010.                                     ..... Appellant.
                     
                           ::  VERSUS  ::


     1. Smt. Anusayabai wd/o Vaikuntha 
      

         Wadbudhe, Aged about 31 years,
         Occupation Household.
   



     2. Ku. Rani d/o Vakuntha Wadbudhe,
         Aged about 7 years Minor.





        Through her next fried and 
        mother Guardian Smt. Anusayabai 
        wd/o.Vaikuntha Wadbudhe - 
        Respondent No.1.





        Respondent Nos.1 and 2 both 
        residents of Village and Post 
        Pipla (Kewalram), Tahsil Narkhed, 
        District Nagpur.




                                                     ::: Downloaded on - 19/08/2015 23:58:17 :::
                                   2                                  fa387.03.odt

     3. Master Rajat s/o Vaikuntha Wadbudhe,
        Aged about 6 years and 2 months Minor,




                                                                            
        through his Next Friend and Mother
        Guardian Smt. Anusayabai wd/o Vaikuntha
        Wadbudhe - Respondent No.1,




                                                    
        R/o Village and Post Pipla (Kewalram),
        Tahsil Narkhed, District Nagpur.

     4. Harishchandra s/o Chirkut Uikey,




                                                   
         Aged about 36 years,
         Occupation Truck Driver,
         C/o Shobha wd/o Ashokrao Sawarkar,
         r/o Main Road, Katol,




                                      
         Taluka Katol, District Nagpur.
                     
     5. Smt. Shobha w/o Ashokrao Sawarkar,
         Aged Adult, Occupation Transport Business,
         R/o Main Road,
                    
         Katol, Taluka Katol, District Nagpur.

     6. Vikas alias Rakesh s/o Sonbaji Fuke,
         Aged Adult, Occupation Agriculturist,
      

         R/o C/o Shri Chandrakant Ghode,
         Opposite Jain Mandir,
   



         At & Post Katol,
         District Nagpur.

     7. The Manager,





         National Insurance Company Limited,
         Division No.2,
         Pal Commercial Complex, 5th Floor,
         Ajni Square, Wardha Road,
         Nagpur - 440 015.                                  ..... Respondents.





                                                    ::: Downloaded on - 19/08/2015 23:58:17 :::
                                   3                                  fa387.03.odt

     =================================
        Shri S.N. Dhanagare, Adv. for the Appellant.




                                                                            
        Shri   V.R.Thote,   Adv.h/f.   Shri   P.A.Shendre,   Adv.   for 
        Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
     =================================




                                                    
                                             ********
              Date of reserving the Judgment         : 11.6.2015.




                                                   
              Date of pronouncing the Judgment    : 19.8.2015.
                                             ********




                                      
                                 CORAM     :  A.P.BHANGALE,  J.

     JUDGMENT      :

1. This First Appeal is directed against the Judgment and

Order dt.13.3.2003 passed by the learned Member, Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur in Claim Petition No.515 of

1997 whereby the Claim Petition under Section 166 of the

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was partly allowed with

proportionate costs. The learned Member, M.A.C.T. held the

truck owner and truck insurer and the jeep owner and jeep

insurer jointly and severally responsible to pay compensation

in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum

from 7.7.1997 till realization of payment. The said Judgment

4 fa387.03.odt

and Order is under challenge in this appeal by the

appellant/Insurance Company.

2. It is the case of the appellant that there was a motor

vehicle accident on 22-3-1997 at 5.00 p.m. at village

Dongargaon, near Orange processing factory, within the limits

of Katol Police Station when jeep bearing registration

No.MH-31-H-1825 owned by Vikas Fuke and insured by the

United India Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as

'Jeep') collided with truck bearing registration No.MTG-2425

owned by Mrs.Shobha Sawarkar and insured by National

Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as 'Truck'). The

jeep was driven by Narayan Ramrao Chaudhari (whose death

Claim Petition No. 838 of 1997 was filed by his dependents

Mother and Sisters). The Truck was driven by Harischandra

Uike. The jeep and the truck driven rashly and negligently

collided with each other. Ownership of the truck and jeep and

insurance cover as on the date of the accident is not denied.

5 fa387.03.odt

3. In that accident stated as head on collision between the

jeep and the truck, the inmates of the jeep and the truck were

injured. Some of them succumbed to injuries. Both the

claimants sustained injuries but they were minor in nature.

But Vaikuntha, who was 35 years old, Guddu, 5 years old and

Vanita 4 years old succumbed to the injuries. Compensation

to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- was claimed for the death of

minor son Guddu. Insurer of the truck denied liability to pay

compensation on the ground that the jeep was used to carry

14 passengers beyond permit limits of 9+1 in it for reward or

hire. The jeep owner, though served did not appear to contest

the Claim Petition. The truck driver was not holding valid

driving license as on the date of the accident, but it was

renewed subsequently after few days. Insurer of the Truck

denied liability to pay compensation on this ground. The

Tribunal found that there was rash and negligent driving of

the truck and the jeep resulting in collision thereof. Based

upon the evidence, all the respondents were held jointly and

severally responsible to pay the compensation.

6 fa387.03.odt

4. It is the case of the insurer that there was a breach of

policy condition as there were 14 excessive passengers in the

jeep. According to the appellant, both - the truck as well as

the jeep collided due to contributory negligence of the drivers

of both offending motor vehicles. Therefore, truck owner and

insurer and jeep owner and insurer were equally liable to pay

compensation. The motor vehicular accident occurred on

22.3.1997 at about 7.55 pm between commander jeep

bearing registration No.MH-31/H/1825 and truck bearing

registration No.MTG-2425. Both the offending motor vehicles

were insured with the United India Insurance Company

Limited.

5. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the

drivers of both the vehicles were responsible as their

contributory negligence resulted in the accident, whereby

family of the claimants suffered effects of the accident and as

a result of which, life of victim was cut short.

7 fa387.03.odt

6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the insurer that the

Insurance Company is not liable to compensate the claimants.

According to Mr.S.N.Dhanagare, learned Counsel for the

appellant, liability of the Insurance Company was 'NIL'

because excess passengers were travelling in the offending

motor vehicle i.e. jeep.

7. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the claimants

submits that the Tribunal should have taken into

consideration the pleadings as well as the evidence led on

record to arrive at just and proper compensation payable to

the claimants. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the

claimants that once it is proved that the accident had

occurred arising out of motor vehicles, the Tribunal should

prove the pleadings of the parties and legal evidence on

record in its entirety to arrive at just and fair compensation.

8. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant, the

liability of the Insurance Company is 'NIL' for breach of policy

for exceeding the seats limits in the jeep. He submits that the

8 fa387.03.odt

Insurance Company was not liable. It is submitted that the

Tribunal was bound to consider the pleadings and legal

evidence on record and appreciate it before the Award is

passed.

9. Learned Tribunal appears to have considered the

evidence on record that the jeep left for Katol to Sawargaon

in which the claimants were travelling. Both the truck and

jeep were driven by respective drivers rashly and negligently

and in a high speed resulting into fatal accident. The

Tribunal held that the motor accident occurred due to the

negligence of both the drivers of jeep and truck. The police

papers were also produced in the form of F.I.R., Inquest

Panchanama and Post Mortem report. Learned Member of

the Tribunal considered the Spot Panchanama with map of

the Scene and found that the accident had occurred in which

both vehicles were dashed against each other due to rashness

and negligence of drivers of jeep and truck. The truck insurer

contended that, on the date of accident, the driver of the

truck did not held valid driving licence.

9 fa387.03.odt

10. Even assuming for the sake of argument that, according

to the Insurance Company, there was breach of Insurance

Contract by the owner of the offending motor vehicle, the rule

is that the Insurer has liability to pay compensation first as

awarded by the Tribunal and then, if it thinks fit, it may

recover the amount so paid from the Insured, if according to

the Insurer, the insured was liable to pay the amount. The

Tribunal may, if necessary be moved for that purpose. The

appeal is, thus, found without merits and it is dismissed

accordingly. No order as to costs.

JUDGE

jaiswal