Icici Lombard General Insurance ... vs Smti Sumitra Rai And 3 Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 1405 Gua

                                                                Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010005302016




                       THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                          Case No. : MACApp./489/2019

         ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
         HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE and HEAD OFFICE AT ICICI BANK
         TOWERS, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, MUMBAI 400051 ITS ZONAL OFFICE
         AT APEEJAY HOUSE, 15 PARK STREET, 7TH FLOOR, KOLKATA 700016 AND
         A BRANCH OFFICE AT MAYUR GARDEN, G.S. ROAD, BHANGAGARH,
         GUWAHATI 781006



         VERSUS

         SMTI SUMITRA RAI and 3 ORS
         W/O SRI GANESH RAI

         2:GANESH RAI
          S/O LATE RAM DAYAL RAI
          BOTH ARE R/O SINGIMARI
         WARD NO. 4
          P.O. and P.S. BORPOTHAR
          DIST. GOLAGHAT
         ASSAM
          PIN 785621

         3:TEPU RAM GOGOI
          S/O SRI SOMESWAR GOGOI
          R/O VILL. GOMARIGURI
          P.O. MERAPANI
          DIST. GOLAGHAT
         ASSAM
          PIN 785622

         4:ELISON LOGUN

          S/O LATE PITER LOGUN
                                                                             Page No.# 2/4

             R/O VILL. TENGABARI GAON
             P.O. SARUPATHAR
             DIST. GOLAGHAT
             ASSAM
             PIN 78562

Advocate for the Petitioner    : MR.R GOSWAMI

Advocate for the Respondent : MR. M DUTTA




                                   BEFORE
                  HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA

                                         ORDER

MAC Appeal No. 489/2019 ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.

..... Appellant

-versus-

Smti. Sumitra Rai and Others

...Respondents

PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA

For the Appellant : Mr. R. Goswami Advocate.

                 For the Respondents            :        Mr. M. Dutta
                                                        Advocate.
                 Date of Hearing                    :    24.03.2022
                 Date of Judgment                   :     28 .04.2022

                              JUDGMENT AND ORDER

28.04.2022

Heard Mr. R. Goswami, learned counsel representing the appellant as well as Mr. M. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

Page No.# 3/4

2. This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Judgment and Award dated 04.01.2016 passed by the MACT, Golaghat in MAC Case No. 150/2010.

3. On 12.09.2010, at about 9.30 PM, the son of the claimant was coming home in a bicycle. When he reached Singimari Siramill, he was run over by the truck bearing registration No. AME-355.

4. The son of the claimant had instant death. He was 20 years old at that time and was unmarried. The claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the M.V. Act seeking compensation. The owner and the driver of the truck bearing registration No. AME- 355 did not contest the case.

5. The appellant/Insurance Company contested the case by stating that that the owner of the vehicle bearing registration No. AME-355 purchased the insurance policy by handing over a cheque but on presentation of the cheque it was dishonoured. The matter was immediately informed to the owner of the truck bearing registration No. AME-355 and he was also informed that the Insurance Policy No. 3003/A/5721319 would be invalid from 11.09.2009 to 10.09.2010.

6. On the basis of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

(i) Whether the accident occurred on 12.09.2010 due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle No. AME-355 (Truck)?

(ii) Whether the claimants are entitled to get compensation, if so, what would be the amount of compensation and from whom?

7. The respondents examined one witness and the appellant did not examined any witness.

8. On the basis of the evidence on record, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.4,52,000/- along with 6% interest per annum from the date of filing of the application.

9. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions of the learned counsels for the both sides.

Page No.# 4/4

10. The only ground of appeal is that the offending vehicle did not have a valid insurance policy at the time of the accident.

11. Having an invalid Insurance Policy at the time of the accident is a violation of policy condition. In the case in hand, no evidence has been adduced by the appellant to prove that there was a violation of policy condition. But violation of a policy condition does not relieve the Insurance Company from paying compensation in a motor accident case.

12. In such a case, the only way out is that the Insurance Company can go for recovery of the money from the owner of the vehicle.

13. This court finds that the appeal has no merit and stands dismissed. The appellant is at liberty to approach appropriate forum for recovery of the money from the owner of the vehicle.

14. Send back the LCR.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant