Jharkhand High Court
National Insurance Company Limited ... vs Hiralal Mahato on 7 May, 2024
Author: Rajesh Kumar
Bench: Rajesh Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.A. No.476 of 2016
----
National Insurance Company Limited through its legal Cell, Ranchi
.... .... Appellant(s)
Versus
1. Hiralal Mahato
2. Jawaharlal Mahato
3. Mahendra Mahato
4. Dhanurjay Mahato
5. Ghashiram Samad. .... .... Respondent(s)
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
----
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Manish Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Sabyasanchi, Adv.
Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Adv.
----
23/Dated: 07th May, 2024
1. The present appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company against
the judgment/Award dated 15.06.2016 passed in Motor Accident Claims
Case No.54 of 2014 by the learned Principal District Judge-cum-M.A.C.T.,
West Singhbhum at Chaibasa.
2. It appears that the only issues has been raised that the deceased was an
unauthorised person travelling on a tractor and for this purpose he has relied
upon the written statement of the owner of the offending vehicle. The issue
No.4 and discussion is as follows:-
"Issue No.IV - Whether the O.P. No.3&4 owners have violated the
terms and conditions of the policy for which the vehicle has been insured
under the O.P. No.6 Insurer?
Discussion of Issue No.iv - It is admitted fact that the offending vehicle
(Tractor) No.JH-06B-1608 and (Trailer) No.JH- 06B-9133 was jointly
owned by O.P. No. 3&4 and duly insured with O.P.No.6, the National
Insurance Co. Ltd. Vide policy No.170101/31/10/6300002133 valid
29.10.10 to 28.10.11. The accident took place from on 04.07.2011, as
such, there remains no doubt that the offending vehicle was insured with
Opposite Party No.6, at the relevant time of accident. The validly of
aforesaid Insurance Policy has been admitted by National Insurance Co.
Limited, Chaibasa.
On behalf of Insurance Company, it has been contended that
since the driver of the of offending vehicle (Tractor & Trailer) has not
holding valid and effective driving license on the date of alleged
accident, hence there is violation of condition of policy and Insurance
Company is not liable to pay the compensation amount.
So far driver of the vehicle is concerned, in the FIR itself, the
name of driver is mentioned as Ghasiram Samad (O.P.No.5), who was
acquainted with the eye witness Hiralal Mahato (informant) prior to the
accident. The said Ghasiram Samad has also been charge-sheeted after
thorough investigation by police. It is also proved that said Ghasiram
Samad had valid driving license baring D.L.No.353/2009 issued on
17.02.2009, valid up to 16.12.2012 authorized to drive L.M.V. (Prof.)
only issued by D.T.O., Chaibasa.
In view of aforesaid discussions and reasons, I find no force in
the contention raised on behalf of O.P.No.6 National Insurance Co.
Limited and held that O.P.No.6 National Insurance Co. Limited has
failed to establish any violation of terms and conditions of the policy.
Hence, liable to indemnify the insured. Accordingly, this issue is decided
against the O.P.No.6 National Insurance Co. Limited."
3. It appears that only driving license of the driver of the vehicle has
been taken into consideration.
4. Learned counsel for the claimant has not made any submission as his
entitlement is not in question.
5. Learned counsel for the owner of the offending vehicle has submitted
that there is no violation of terms and conditions of the licence and the
vehicle was duly insured and the driver was in possession of the valid
license. In that view of the matter, the right to recovery has rightly been
denied to the Insurance Company.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of
the records, it appears that the owner of the offending vehicle himself has
admitted that the deceased was unauthorised person and was not an
employee.
7. In that view of the matter, the Award is hereby modified to the extent
that the right to recovery is hereby granted to the Insurance Company.
8. With above observation and direction, the present miscellaneous
appeal stands disposed of.
9. The statutory amount shall be remitted back to the Tribunal to be
released in favour of the claimant or the Insurance Company depending
upon the factual matrix of the case.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Amar/-
Uploaded
