The National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Susmita Pal & Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 592 Cal

16.02.2022
Item No.16
Ct. No.7
AGM
RKB
                            F.M.A. 497 of 2014
                           (FMAT 1314 of 2013)
                    CAN 2/2015(Old CAN No.6056/2015)
                   CAN 3/2019 (Old CAN No. 11261/2019)

                              (Physical Hearing)



                       The National Insurance Co. Ltd
                                     Vs
                            Susmita Pal & Ors.

             Mr. Rajesh Singh,
                                     ... For the Appellant.
             Mr. Uday Sankar Chattopadhyay
             Mr. Suman Sankar Chatterjee.
                             ... For the Respondent/claimants


               Both the learned advocates for the parties to the

             appeal conjointly urge for expeditious disposal of this

             appeal.

               Learned advocate for both the parties are ad idem

             on the point that the instant appeal may be disposed

             of giving a go by to the technicalities involved in the

             process. It is submitted by the learned advocate for

             the appellant that the appeal may be disposed of on

             the basis of the materials furnished by both the

             parties to this case, which is not opposed by the

             respondents/claimants.

               When learned advocates for both the parties are

             agreeable to the expeditious disposal of the instant

             appeal, the Court should not stand in the way.
                         2




   The appeal of Insurance Company is directed

against the judgment and award dated July 9, 2013,

passed by learned Judge, M.A.C.Tribunal, 1st Court,

Burdwan, in M.A.C. Case No.41 of 2010 on a claim

under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,

granting award to the tune of Rs.30,49,433/- to

dependents of the deceased, namely Somnath Pal, for

a vehicular accident , occurred on 24th day of May,

2010, by reason of involvement of vehicle being No.

WB-41B/9798 in consequence of rash and negligent

driving.

   Mr. Rajesh Singh, learned advocate representing

the appellant insurance company submits that the

learned      Tribunal       has   erroneously   decided   the

compensation ignoring the fact that the offending

vehicle did not possess a valid route permit on the

date of accident.

   Adverting to the exhibited documents, like seizure

list   and    charge-sheet,       Mr.   Singh   submits   that

offending Mini Truck had been used making violation

of the terms and conditions of the policy issued by the

appellant/Insurance Company. The quantification of

the award is thus absolutely illegal.

   Emphasis has been made by Mr. Singh that the

route permit of the offending vehicle was neither

seized by the police authorities, nor produced by the
                         3




claimants/respondents            and    therefore,    it   can    be

concluded that on the date of accident the involved

Mini Truck did not possess a valid route permit.

Thus, there had been gross violation of the terms and

conditions      of      the      policy,     for     which       the

appellant/Insurance Company should not have been

made liable to pay any compensation responding to

the claim application.           Referring to the terms and

conditions of the policy, and the wanting of valid

route permit of the offending vehicle, Mr. Singh

contends that the compensation, if any, should have

been paid by the owner of the offending vehicle, but

not by Insurance Company, for the apparent violation

of the terms and conditions of the policy being ex

faice, shown in the instant claim case.

  Reference is drawn to a decision of Hon'ble Apex

Court rendered in the case of Amrit Paul Singh &

Anr. Vs. TATA AIG General Insurance Company

Limited & Anr. reported in (2018) 7 SCC 558.

  Mr.    Uday         Shankar      Chattopadhyay,          learned

advocate appearing on behalf of the claimants has

filed a cross objection being COT 14 of 2015.                    The

said    cross        objection     is      not     pressed.      Mr.

Chattopadhyay, however, submits that the non-

seizure of route permit by the police authorities

cannot be a valid ground for depriving the poor
                    4




claimants from getting compensation for the death of

the victim.

  Upon perusal of the judgment, it appears that

deceased left this world being a victim of road traffic

accident, when he was 32 yeas old.

  Facts

leading to the death of victim in the above

accident are not disputed.

For the violations/contravention of the terms and

conditions of the insurance policy, due to inadequacy

of the route permit, the dependants of the deceased

should not be subjected to starvation for their

financial distress in a claim case under Section 166 of

the M.V. Act.

In the case of Amrit Paul Singh (supra), as

referred by Mr. Singh, learned advocate for the

Insurance Company/appellant, the offending vehicle

had no valid permit, far to speak off temporary permit

or any other kind of permit. True it is that use of a

vehicle in a public place without a permit is a

fundamental statutory infraction, which cannot be

compared in context with absence of licence or fake

licence. But the ratio of the decision, as available in

para 23 of the said decision is that the principle

rendered by the Apex Court in the case of National

Insurance Company Limited -versus- Swaran

Singh and others reported in 2004 (3) SCC 297 was

reinforced borrowing the same laid down there,

thereby the proposition of law laid down therein as

regards the "Pay and Recovery", was reinforced.

The points so raised, in the appeal by the

appellant/Insurance Company may be a subject of

consideration before the appropriate forum in

connection with appropriate litigation, if any,

undertaken by the Insurance Company intending to

recover the amount payable to

claimants/respondents.

Therefore, in the given context of this case, there

cannot be any reverse decision of law against the

settled propositions of law already decided by the

Apex Court "Pay and Recovery".

It appears that a sum of Rs.30,24,433/-, apart

from statutory deposit of Rs.25,000/-, has already

been deposited by insurance company through

respective challans with the Registrar General of this

Court.

The Registrar General will ensure that the entire

deposited amount along with interest accrued

thereon, is paid to the claimants as expeditiously as

possible, preferably within a period of three (03)

weeks from the date of receipt of bank account details

of the claimants.

Liberty is given to claimants to make proper

approach to Registrar General for release of such

amount, and if any approach is made by claimants,

the Registrar General of this Court shall cause order

releasing entire deposited amount, as mentioned

above, forthwith upon establishing identity of

claimants.

Learned advocate for the respondents/claimants

shall forward the bank account details of the

respondents/claimants within a fortnight from the

date to the Registrar General of this Court. The

payment shall be made in the same manner and

proportion, as already decided by the learned court

below.

The payment should be made directly to the bank

accounts of the appellants/claimants through

NEFT/RTGS.

Insurance Company is further given liberty to take

steps in accordance with law to recover the amount

payable to the respondents/claimants from the owner

of the offending vehicle.

In view of the disposal of this appeal, connected

applications, if any, are also disposed of. The Cross

Objection is also disposed of. Department to forthwith

tag relevant COT being COT 14 of 2015 with the case

record.

There shall be no further order as to costs.

Lower Court Records if any, may be returned back

to the learned court below.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if

applied for, be given to the parties, upon compliance

of all formalities, on priority basis.

(Subhasis Dasgupta, J.)