Gauhati High Court
The United India Insurance Company ... vs Smti. Anurupa Roy And 3 Ors on 21 August, 2025
Page No.# 1/11
GAHC010274982019
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : MACApp./419/2022
THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 24 WHITES ROAD, CHENNAI-600014
AND REGIONAL OFFICE AT CHIBBER HOUSE. G.S. ROAD, GUWAHATI-5,
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE,
GUWAHATI (INSURER OF THE VEHICLE NO. DL-4CE-2988 TATA SUMO)
VERSUS
SMTI. ANURUPA ROY AND 3 ORS
W/O LATE UTPAL ROY, R/O BARPARA, BONGAIGAON TOWN, P.O. AND P.S.
BONGAIGAON, DIST. BONGAIGAON, ASSAM.
2:SRI MANI JAIN
S/O UNKNOWN
R/O 3826
PRAJAPATI TEMPLE
PAHARGANJ
DELHI-110005
(OWNER OF VEHICLE NO. DL-4CE-2988 (TATA SUMO)
3:SRI SATISH KUMAR
S/O UNKNOWN
R/O 3826
PRAJAPATI TEMPLE
PAHARGANJ
DELHI-110005
(OWNER OF VEHICLE NO. DL-4CE-2988 (TATA SUMO)
4:SRI SANJEEV KUMAR
S/O PRITAMCHAND
R//O 153-F
SOUTH EAST NEW DELHI
Page No.# 2/11
(DRIVER OF VEHICLE NO. DL-4CE-2988 (TATA SUMO
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A DUTTA, MR. S. PEGU,MR. A J SAIKIA,MRS. P M DUTTA
Advocate for the Respondent : MR. K R BORA, MR. J BHATI,U MUDIAR
Linked Case : MACApp./415/2022
THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 24 WHITES ROAD
CHENNAI-600014 AND REGIONAL OFFICE AT CHIBBER HOUSE
G.S. ROAD
GUWAHATI-5
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER
REGIONAL OFFICE
GUWAHATI (INSURER OF THE VEHICLE NO. DL-4C-E-2998 (TATA SUMO)
VERSUS
SMTI BIDYABATI BHUYAN AND 3 ORS
W/O LATE RABIN KR. BHUYAN@ LATE RABINDRA KR. BHUYAN
R/O BARPARA
BONGAIGAON TOWN
WARD NO.5
P.O. AND P.S. BONGAIGAON
DIST. BONGAIGAON
ASSAM
PIN 783380
2:MISS TONMOYEE BHUYAN
D/O LATE RABIN KR. BHUYAN@ LATE RABINDRA KR. BHUYAN
R/O BARPARA
BONGAIGAON TOWN
WARD NO.5
P.O. AND P.S. BONGAIGAON
DIST. BONGAIGAON
ASSAM
PIN 783380
3:SRI MANI JAIN
S/O UNKNOWN
Page No.# 3/11
4:SRI SATISH KUMAR
S/O UNKNOWN
R/O 3826
PRAJAPATI TEMPLE
PAHARGANJ
DELHI-110005
(OWNER OF VEHICLE NO. DL-4C-E-2998 (TATA SUMO))
5:SRI SANJEEV KUMAR
S/O PRITAMCHAND
R/O 153-F
SOUTH-EAST NEW DELHI
(DRIVER OF VEHICLE NO. DL-4C-E-2998 (TATA SUMO))
------------
Advocate for : MR. A DUTTA
Advocate for : MR. K R BORA appearing for SMTI BIDYABATI BHUYAN AND 3
ORS
Linked Case : MACApp./417/2022
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 24 WHITES ROAD
CHENNAI- 600014 AND REGIONAL OFFICE AT CHIBBER HOUSE
G.S. ROAD
GUWAHATI-5
REP. BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER
REGIONAL OFFICE
GUWAHATI. (INSURER OF THE VEHICLE NO. DL-4CE-2998 (TATA SUMO).
VERSUS
SMTI. MANJULATA ROY AND 4 ORS
W/O- LATE RANJIT KR. ROY
R/O- GAURIPUR
BARUAHPATTY
WARD NO. 5
P.O. AND P.S. GAURIPUR
DIST.- DHUBRI
ASSAM
PIN- 783331.
2:SRI KULDIP ROY
S/O- LATE RANJIT KR. ROY
Page No.# 4/11
R/O- GAURIPUR
BARUAHPATTY
WARD NO. 5
P.O. AND P.S. GAURIPUR
DIST.- DHUBRI
ASSAM
PIN- 783331.
3:SRI MANI JAIN
R/O- 3826
PRAJAPATI TEMPLE
PAHARGANJ
DELHI- 110005.
4:SRI SATISH KUMAR
W/O- LATE RANJIT KR. ROY
R/O- GAURIPUR
BARUAHPATTY
WARD NO. 5
P.O. AND P.S. GAURIPUR
DIST.- DHUBRI
ASSAM
PIN- 783331. (OWNER OF VEHICLE NO. DL-4CE-2998 (TATA SUMO).
5:SRI SANJEEV KUMAR
S/O- PRITAMCHAND
R/O- 153-F
EAST NEW DELHI. (DRIVER OF VEHICLE NO. DL-4CE-2998 (TATA SUMO).
------------
Advocate for : MR. A DUTTA
Advocate for : MR. K R BORA appearing for SMTI. MANJULATA ROY AND 4 ORS
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER
ORDER
Date : 21.08.2025
1. Heard Mr. A.J. Saikia, learned counsel for the appellants/ Insurance
Company Ltd. and Mr. U. Mudiar and Mr. K.R. Bora, learned counsels for the
claimant /respondent No. 1 in MAC Appeal No. 419 of 2022, claimant /
respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in MAC Appeal No. 415 of 2022 and claimant
Page No.# 5/11
respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in MAC Appeal No. 417 of 2022.
2. The three MAC appeals have been heard together as they are analogous
matters and arising out of the same incident.
3. These three appeals under Section 173 of the MVA Act, 1988have been
preferred against the impugned judgment and award dated 27.06.1919, passed
by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bongaigaon in
analogous cases i.e. MAC Case No. 130 of 2000, MAC Case No. 132 of 2000 and
MAC Case No. 131 of 2000.
4. Thefacts of the case of the respondent No. 1/ claimant in MAC Appeal No.
419 of 2022was that on 07.05.2000 at about 9.30 am when her husband was
travelling to Agra with his other associates in the vehicle bearing registration No.
DL-4C-E-2998 (Tata Sumo), the said vehicle was being driven in the rash and
negligent manner and met with an accident on G.T. Road (Delhi Agra Road),
near village Alapurunder CityPalwal Police Station in District of Faridabad,
Haryana. As a result of the said accident, her husband sustained grievous
injuries and he was declared dead by the doctors on arrival at the Hospital. In
this connection a case was registered beingPalwal Police Station Case No.
258/2000 under Section 279/ 237/304 (A) IPC.
5. It may be mentioned here that the offending vehicle Tata Sumo which was
driven in a rash and negligent manner was insured with the appellant Insurance
Company i.e. United India Insurance Company Ltd.The claimant/ respondent
thereafter filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the MV Act, 1988 claiming
compensation of Rs, 14, 71,742/- only as compensation for the accidental death
of her husband occurred. The said case was registered as MAC Case No.
Page No.# 6/11
130/2000 before the leaned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Bongaigaon, which was disposed of by the learned Member, Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Bongaigaon vide judgment and award dated 27.06.2019.
6. The facts of the case of the claimants/ respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in MAC
Appeal No. 415 of 2022 was that their husband/fatherwas travelling to Agra in
the said offending vehicle with their other associates bearing registration No.
DL-4C-E-2998 (Tata Sumo), the said vehicle was being driven in the rash and
negligent manner and met with an accident on G.T. Road ( Delhi Agra Road),
near village Alapurunder City Palwal Police Station in District of Faridabad,
Hariana. As a result of the said accident, their husband/was sustained
grievousinjuries and he was declared dead by the doctors on arrival at the
hospital. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 preferred claims petition before the
learned MACT, Bongaigaon, claiming compensation Rs. 15, 46,939/- which was
registered as MAC Case No. 132/2000 and the same was disposed of by the
learned Member, MACT, Bongaigaon vide the said impugned judgment and
award dated 27.06.2019.
7. The facts of the case of the claimant respondent Nos. 1 and 2/ claimants
in MAC Case No. 417 of 2022 was that in the same accident as aforementioned,
their husband/father were travelling to Agra with their associates in the said
vehicle bearing registration No. DL-4C-E-2998 (Tata Sumo), the said vehicle was
being driven in the rash and negligent manner and met with an accident on G.T.
Road (Delhi Agra Road), near village Alapurunder CityPalwal Police Station in
District of Faridabad, Haryana. As a result of the said accident, their father
/husband sustained grievous injuries, and hewas declared dead by the doctors
Page No.# 7/11
on arrival at the hospital. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 preferred claim petition
before the learned MACT, Bongaigaon, which was registered as MAC Case No.
131/2000 and the same was disposed of by the learned Member, MACT,
Bongaigaon vide the said judgment and award dated 27.06.2019.
8. The learned tribunal by separate judgments and orders dated 27.06.2019,
disposed of the said analogous MAC Cases, i.e. MAC Case No. 130/2000, MAC
Case No. 132/2000 and MAC Case No. 131/2000,awarding Rs. 26,05,792/ , Rs.
29,44,780/- and Rs. 29,02,840/- respectively.
9. Being aggrieved by the said impugned judgment and award dated
27.06.2019, the appellant Insurance Company has come before this Court by
filing these three analogous MAC appeals i.e. MAC Appeal No. 419 of 2022, MAC
Appeal No. 415 of 2022 and MAC Appeal No. 417 of 2022 on the following
grounds:
(i) That the learned tribunal failed to take into the
consideration the evidence on record, more particularly, the
FIR /Ext. 2 as well as the evidence of DW 1, which clearly shows
that in the present case, a private vehicle was used for hire and
the offending Tata Sumo had the total capacity of 8 persons
including driver and helper but was overloaded and carried more
than 11 persons.
(ii) It is submitted that from the above FIR/ Ext. 2 and
the evidence of DW-1, it is clear that there was clear violation of
the policy conditions of the policy issued by the appellant/
Insurance Company in the present case.
Page No.# 8/11
(iii) That the learned tribunal by relying upon the
evidence of PW 1/ Claimant to the effect that the owner of the
offending vehicle Tata Sumo had given a freeride to the
deceased associates for a trip to Agra as well as the evidence of
PW 2, erroneously awarded compensation to the respondents/
claimants.
10. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that in MAC
Appeal No. 419/2022 the claimant had admitted before the learned tribunal that
she received Rs. 6,560,90/-as personal accident coverage and therefore, the
same has to be deducted from the total awarded amount of compensation if this
court may at all hold that the compensation was rightly awarded to the
claimant. It is also stated that the claimants/ respondents in MAC Appeal No.
415/ 2022, have also received an amount to 6,15, 840/ - as personal accident
coverage and the same also needs to be deducted from the total awarded
amount of compensationif judgment and award is upheld by this court.
11. Another ground taken by the appellant is that there was clear violation
of the policy conditions of the policy issued by the appellant company in the
present case. He refers to the Ext. A/ policy wherein it is seen that the same
was only for personal use and not to be used for hire or reward. However, this
policy conditions have been violated and therefore the claimants are not entitled
to get compensation, as the FIR stated that the vehicle was being used on
hire .
12. The learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted that in
paragaraph 8 of the impugned judgment and award, the tribunal had reflected
Page No.# 9/11
the evidence of the claimants who stated that in the said accident, his
colleagues also sustained grievous injuries and some of them died due to the
accident and he had named 9 other persons as being present in the said
vehicle. The learned counsel therefore, submits that there were 10 persons in
the vehicle at the time of accident, violating the policy conditions which provide
coverage for only 8 (eight) persons.
13. The learned counsel for the claimant respondents on the other hand has
drawn attention of this court to the impugned judgment and award dated
27.06.2019, more specifically, in Paragraph 17, 18 and 19 wherein the tribunal
had discussed the entire evidence extensively and came to the conclusion that
the appellant/ Insurance Company had not adduced any evidence with regard to
the contention that the offending vehicle was used on hire and that the vehicle
was over loaded by 11 persons instead of 8 persons. The tribunal held that
there is no evidence that the accident was caused due to over loading and
having no proof of this fact, the appellant/ Insurance Company could not prove
their pleadings and substantiate their pleas.
14. The learned counsel for the respondents/ claimant has also submitted that
the personal accident coverage amount received by the claimants/ respondents
in MAC Appeal No. 419/2022 and MAC Appeal No. 415/ 2022 are not related to
the present policy which is under consideration. There are 2 different policies as
already reflected in the impugned judgment and award at Paragraph 4 wherein
the learned tribunal has clearly observed that the personal accident coverage of
the said policy number is different from that of the policy which was involved in
the present case. He, therefore, submits that the personal accident coverage
amount which the claimants received may not be deducted from the amount
Page No.# 10/11
awarded by the learned tribunal.
15. The learned counsel for the respondents/ claimants has relied on cases of
Jagtar Sing Vs. Sanjeev Kumar and Ors reported in (2018) 5 SCC 189,
United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Urmila Chand, reported in
2015 (1) TAC 102 and YashpalLuthra and Ors Vs. United India
Insurance Companyand ors.reported in MANU/DE/3174/2009 to support
his contention that a comprehensive package policy covers the liability of the
insured for payment of compensation for the occupants in a car.
16. This court has considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the
parties and also perused the pleadings and the authorities relied upon by the
learned counsel for respondents/ claimants and the appellants.
17. Upon going through the records and the evidence, this court has seen that
the appellant insurer had raised the issue of violation of the policy condition.
However, no evidence was adduced to support their claim. It is settled law that
the appellant/ insurer had to establish a case by their own evidence and not rely
upon the evidence of the claimant. The claimants/ respondents had clearly
stated in their examination-in-chief that the owner of the offending vehicle had
given his vehicle to his friends without any consideration for trip to Agra. The
owner of the vehicle also did not appear in spite of notice and did not controvert
the evidence of the claimant that he had loaned the vehicle to his friend.
18. The PW- 2 in MAC Case No. 131/2000-MACApp. No. 417/ 2022, who was
one of the victims had deposed before the learned tribunal that he was not
aware of what was written in the FIR as his signature was taken by the police
when he was admitted in the hospital in injured condition. The appellant/
Page No.# 11/11
insurer had only relied on the FIR to take the plea that the offending vehicle
was used for hire and reward. Beside that no other evidence has been adduced.
There is also no evidence that the accident took place due to over loading.
19. It is settled position of law that a comprehensive package policy covers
the liability of the insured for payment of compensation for the occupants in a
car, and it is seen that the policy at Ext. A is a comprehensive package policy.
20. The Tribunal is not bound by the strict rules of the Evidence Act and
follows a preponderance of probabilities standard rather than proof beyond
reasonable doubt.
21. In view of the findings as stated above, this Court is unable to find any
irregularity or illegality in the impugned judgment and award dated 27.06.2019
passed by the learned Member, MACT, Bongaigaon in MAC Case No. 130/2000,
MAC Case No. 132/2000 and MAC Case No. 131/2000 and the appeals are
dismissed.
22. The Registry is directed to refund the statutory deposit made by the
appellant/ insurer.
23. The appeals are disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
