Jharkhand High Court
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Vina Devi on 6 February, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.A. No. 476 of 2017
National Insurance Co. Ltd., Hero Honda Kartical-101106,
House N1 Connaught Palace, New Delhi, having its head office,
the National Insurance Co. Ltd. Middleton Street, Kolkata-700071,
having its office also at Ranchi Divisional Manager,
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Sachindra Sadan,
S.N. Gangully Road, Ranchi. ..... ... Appellant
Versus
1. Vina Devi, wife of Late Kamal Sahu
2. Anand Sahu, son of Late Kamal Sahu
3. Mamta Kumari, daughter of Late Kamal Sahu
4. Gulab Kumari, daughter of Late Kamal Sahu
5. Viraj Devi, wife of Late Jagdish Sahu
6. Kaleshwar Sahu, son of Prabhu Sahu ..... ... Respondents
--------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
------
For the Appellant : Mr. Alok Lal, Advocate.
For the Resp. Nos. 1 to 5 : Mr. Achinto Sen, Advocate.
For the Resp No. 6 : Mr. S.K. Barnwal, Advocate
------
10/ 06.02.2023 Heard Mr. Alok Lal, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant-insurance company, Mr. Achinto Sen, learned counsel for the
respondent Nos. 1 to 5 (claimants) and Mr. S.K. Barnwal, learned counsel
for the respondent No. 6 (owner)
2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-insurance
company, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment/award dated
18.03.2017, passed by the learned Principal District Judge-cum-Presiding
Officer, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Lohardaga, in
Compensation Case No. 29 of 2012.
3. In the plaint, inadvertently Ram Charan Sahu was typed,
which was allowed to be corrected vide order dated 26.08.2015 and
thereafter necessary correction has been made in para-19(k) to that effect.
4. On 29.06.2010, Ram Chandar Sahu was driving the New
Hero Honda Passion Plus Motor Cycle, which dashed the cyclist. He was
referred for further treatment at RIMS, Ranchi, where he succumbed to
injuries. The fardbeyan was recorded at RIMS, Ranchi, where the cousin
of the deceased had stated that Kamal Sahu fell down by a dash of the
motorcycle and he succumbed to his injuries. It has been stated by the
informant that he has lost his mental balance after the death of the
deceased, however, the fardbeyan was recorded and in that background,
the claim application was filed.
5. The learned tribunal vide judgment dated 18.03.2017 has
been pleased to allow the said claim application by way of directing the
insurance company to pay a sum of Rs. 4,62,834/- to the claimants.
Further direction was made to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the mother of
the deceased [respondent No. 5] and also directed to pay 50% of the rest
amount along with accrued interest in the names of the minor children
arrayed as respondent Nos. 2 to 4 under guardianship of their mother, who
is respondent No. 1, in a nationalized Bank of the choice of the claimants
and the rest of the amount was also directed to be paid to the respondent
No. 1 [who is wife of the deceased] with 6% simple interest per annum
payable from the date of filing the petition till the payment is made.
6. Mr. Alok Lal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-
insurance company has assailed the impugned judgment on the ground
that in violation of the policy, the motorcycle in question was driven. He
submits that the motorcycle in question was not registered till the date of
accident and in that view of the matter, the liability cannot be fastened
upon the appellant insurance company, however, at best, the insurance
company can pay and the recovery is required to be made by the
insurance company from the owner of the motorcycle in question. He
further submits that there are several judgments of Hon'ble Supreme
Court as well as High Courts, wherein it has been held that if the terms
and conditions of the policy are being violated, the insurance company is
not liable for any compensation. On that ground, learned counsel
appearing for the appellant-insurance company submits that this appeal
may kindly be allowed.
7. Mr. Sandeep Kumar Barnwal, learned counsel appearing for
the owner submits that the aforesaid plea was not taken by the insurance
company before the learned tribunal and for the first time, that is being
argued in the present appeal. He submits that the owner has already paid a
sum of Rs. 2600/- for registration of the motorcycle in question and
insurance company has failed to prove that the owner of the motorcycle in
question was at fault for non-registration of the said motorcycle.
8. Mr. Achinto Sen, learned counsel appearing for the claimants
submits that meager amount has been awarded by the tribunal and till
date, the award passed by the tribunal has not been satisfied.
9. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel
appearing for the parties, the court has perused the impugned award and
the lower court records and finds that after considering the evidence
adduced on behalf of the parties as well as the documentary evidence, the
learned tribunal has decided the claim application. On perusal of the
lower court records, it transpires that owner of the motorcycle in question
has produced the receipt dated 01.04.2010, wherein it has been disclosed
that a sum of Rs. 2600/- was taken by the dealer Auto Bikes for
registration of the said motorcycle in question. Thus, it is crystal clear that
for registration of the motorcycle in question, the amount has already
been paid by the owner of the said motorcycle, however, the registration
number was not issued till the date of accident. In that view of the matter,
the liability cannot be fastened upon the owner of the motorcycle in
question considering that he has already paid a sum of Rs. 2600/- and it
was the duty of the dealer Auto Bike as well as the office of the DTO to
issue the said registration number. There is no doubt, in cases, where, it
has been proved that if there is violation of terms and policy, the courts
are directing the insurance company to pay first and to recover the same
from the owner. However, in the case in hand, the insurance company has
not led any evidence and also not taken the said particular point of
registration in the written statement and in that view of the matter, that
ground is not available to the appellant-insurance company herein.
10. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.
11. The statutory amount deposited by the insurance company
shall be transmitted back to the learned tribunal and the learned tribunal
shall take endeavour to satisfy the award within six weeks from the date
of receipt / production of the copy of this order.
12. Let the Lower Court Records be sent back to the concerned
court forthwith.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Amitesh/-
