Bombay High Court
United India Insurance Company Ltd. ... vs Vijay S/O Ramkrishna Jaiswal And Anr on 23 September, 2024
Author: M.W. Chandwani
Bench: M.W. Chandwani
2024:BHC-NAG:10633
1 fa1098.09.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL NO.1098 OF 2009
United India Insurance Company Ltd.
Through its Regional Manager, Branch
Office, Khamgaon, Tq. Khamgaon,
Distt. Buldana.
...APPELLANT
...V E R S U S...
1. Vijay S/o Ramkrishna Jaiswal,
Aged about 30 years, Occ: Service,
R/o Chandol, Tq. & Dist. Buldana.
Appeal is abated
against Resp. No.2 2. Lakhan s/o Mansabkhan Pathan
vide order dated Aged about 60 years, Occ: Agriculture&
30.10.2023 Business, R/o Chandol, Tq. &
Dist. Buldana. ...RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms Mrunal Naik, Advocate for Appellant.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM :- M.W. CHANDWANI, J.
ARGUMENTS WERE HEARD ON :- 02.07.2024.
JUDGMENT IS PRONOUNCED ON :- 23.09.2024
JUDGMENT:
1. This appeal preferred under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 assails the judgment and order dated
05.11.2008 passed by the Member of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Buldana (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal" for short)
in M.A.C.P. No.135/2003.
2. By the impugned award dated 05.11.2008, the
Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.2,22,280/- alongwith
2 fa1098.09.odt
interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of the claim petition
to respondent no.1/claimant on account of injury caused to him in
vehicular accident that occurred on 14.03.2000.
3. Respondent no.1 filed the claim petition before the
Tribunal claiming that he went to Paithan to attend the marriage
of his friend Anil Rajput. While returning from Paithan in a Jeep
bearing registration No.MH 38/A-8188, which was insured with
the appellant, the driver of the said Jeep, driving in a rash and
negligent manner, dashed against the tractor and trolley parked on
the roadside, wherein he sustained injuries on the forehead and
the right femoral head. He was admitted in the hospital and
treated, therefore, he claimed a compensation of Rs.4,40,000/-.
The appellant appeared and denied the claim of respondent no.1.
After hearing, by the impugned award, the Tribunal granted
compensation of Rs.2,22,280/- to respondent no.1 and directed
the appellant and respondent no.2 to pay the compensation jointly
and severally alongwith interest at the rate 7.5% per annum from
the date of application till its realization.
4. The main contention raised in this appeal is that, the
Jeep was a private vehicle but been it has used for the commercial
3 fa1098.09.odt
purpose of carrying passengers for marriage and the vehicle is
covered under Act Only policy, therefore, risk of the occupant of
the jeep was not covered under the insurance policy. It is also
contended that this specific ground was raised in the written
statement filed before the Tribunal but that has not been
considered.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and
also gone through the record and proceedings of the Tribunal.
Bare perusal of the written statement filed by the appellant, which
is at Exh.47 in record and proceedings of the Tribunal, does not
reveal that such a defence was taken in the written statement.
Rather, the defence which has been taken in written statement is
that the driver of the Jeep was carrying more passengers than the
permitted capacity. Therefore, I do not find any substance in the
argument of the learned counsel for the appellant. The Tribunal
has rightly observed that the said defence has been not been taken
in the written statement and rejected the argument of the
appellant regarding the use of the vehicle commercially.
6. Be that as it may, even otherwise, cover note Exh.64
goes to show that the policy is Hire or Reward policy which itself
suggests that the policy permits carrying of passengers in the
4 fa1098.09.odt
vehicle, therefore, the argument advanced by the learned counsel
for the appellant does not hold water with the aspect to the fact
that respondent no.1-occupant/passenger of the said Jeep cannot
be compensated.
7. Above all by filing this appeal, the appellant wants to
fasten the liability on respondent no.2 i.e. owner of the Jeep but
the fact remains that respondent no.2 died and appeal against him
is abated. No legal heirs have been brought on record by the
appellant. In that scenario also i.e. in absence of legal heirs of
deceased respondent no.2 on record, no liability can be fastened
on them. The appellant itself did not add legal heirs of deceased
respondent no.2 as party respondents.
8. In view of above, no interference is required in the
impugned award. The Tribunal has rightly held the appellant and
deceased respondent no.2 jointly and severally liable to pay the
compensation amount. The appeal is devoid of merits and same
stands dismissed.
JUDGE
Wagh
