Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt.Seema Gurjar vs Yakub Khan on 20 February, 2023
Author: Sunita Yadav
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV
ON THE 20th OF FEBRUARY, 2023
MISC. APPEAL No. 944 of 2009
BETWEEN:-
NARENDRA SINGH GURJAR S/O PUNJAB SINGH
GURJAR , AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURE & MILK SAILOR,R/O VILL.-
REPURA,TEH.& DISTT.DATIA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY MR. R.P.GUPTA - ADVOCATE)
AND
YAKUB KHAN S/O UMMAN KHAN , AGED ABOUT
28 YEARS, OCCUPATION: DRIVER INDICA
1. NO.M.P.04 T.C.2252 R/O VAGGANI
MOHALLA,WARD NO.28,CHHATARPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
GURU NARAYAN PANDEY S/O S.R.PANDEY , AGED
ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCCUPATION: R/O KRISHNA
2.
COLONY, GALI NO.3, NARAYANPURA MARG,
WARD NO.1, CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE
CO.LTD.JABALPUR IST FLOOR PLOT NO.324,
3. OCCUPATION: KARTAR R/O NAPIER TOWN,
RUSSEL CHOURAHA, JABALPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
SURENDRA SINGH S/O LAXMAN SINGH GURJAR ,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
4.
OCC:AGRICULTURIST, R/O VILL.RAIPURA, TEH.
BHANDER, DISTT.DATIYA (MADHYA PRADESH)
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. THR:
5.
DIVISIONAL MANAGER (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(MR. S.N. GAJENDRAGADKAR - ADVOCATE FOR
ALOK KUMAR
2023.02.22
17:20:42
+05'30'
11.0.23
2
RESPONDENT NO. 3 AND MR. B.K. AGRAWAL -
ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO. 5 - INSURANCE
COMPANY)
MISC. APPEAL No. 945 of 2009
BETWEEN:-
SMT.SEEMA GURJAR W/O NARENDRA SINGH
GURJAR , AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
HOUSE WIFE,R/O VILL.REPURA,TEH. BHANDER
DISTT.DATIA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY MR. R.P.GUPTA - ADVOCATE)
AND
YAKUB KHAN S/O JUMMAN KHAN , AGED
ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCCUPATION: DRIVER
1. INDICA CAR NO.M-04 T.C./2252 R/O VAGGANI
MOHALLA,WARD NO.28 CHHATTARPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
GURU NARAYAN PANDEY S/O S.R.PANDEY ,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCCUPATION: R/O
2. KRISHNA COLONY, GALI NO.3, NARAYANPURA
MARG, WARD NO.1, CHHATARPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE
CO.LTD.JABALPUR IST FLOOR PLOT NO.324
3. KARTAR OCCUPATION: R/O NAPIER TOWN,
RUSSEL CHOURAHA, JABALPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
SURENDRA SINGH S/O LAXMAN SINGH
GURJAR , AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
4. OCCUPATION: OCC:AGRICULTURIST, R/O
VILL.RAIPURA, TEH.BHANDER, DISTT.DATIYA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. GWALIOR,
5. THR: DIVISIONAL MANAGER (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(MR. S.N. GAJENDRAGADKAR - ADVOCATE FOR
RESPONDENT NO. 3 AND MR. B.K. AGRAWAL -
ALOK KUMAR
2023.02.22
17:20:58
+05'30'
11.0.23
3
ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO. 5 - INSURANCE
COMPANY)
MISC. APPEAL No. 948 of 2009
BETWEEN:-
SURENDRA SINGH GURJAR S/O S/O RANVEER
SINGH , AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURIST,R/O VILLAGE RAIPURA TEH. &
DISTT. DATIA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY MR. R.P.GUPTA - ADVOCATE)
AND
YAKUB KHAN S/O S/O JUMMAN KHAN , AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
1. OCCUPATION: DRIVER, R/O BAGANGANI MOHALLA WARD NO.28
CHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
GURU NARAYAN PANDEY S/O S/O S.R.PANDEY , AGED ABOUT 35
YEARS, OCCUPATION: R/O KRISHNA COLONY, GALI NO.3,
2.
NARAYANPURA MARG WARD NO.1, CHHATARPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.JABALPUR, IST
3. FLOOR PLOT NO.324, OCCUPATION: KARTAR NIWAS, NAPIER TOWN,
RUSSEL CHOURAHA, JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
SURENDRA SINGH S/O S/O LAXMAN SINGH GURJAR , AGED ABOUT
4. 24 YEARS, OCCUPATION: OCC:AGRICULTURIST, R/O VILL.RAIPURA
TEH.BHANDER, DISTT.DATIYA (MADHYA PRADESH)
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. GWALIOR, THR: DIVISIONAL
5.
MANAGER (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(MR. S.N. GAJENDRAGADKAR - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO. 3 AND
MR. B.K. AGRAWAL - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO. 5 - INSURANCE
COMPANY)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These appeals coming on for hearing this day, the court passed
the following:
ALOK KUMAR
2023.02.22
17:21:11 +05'30'
11.0.23
4
JUDGMENT
This judgment shall govern the disposal of aforesaid appeals
(M.A. Nos. 944 of 2009, 945 of 2009 and 948 of 2009). For the sake of
convenience, facts mentioned in M.A. No. 944 of 2009 are taken into
consideration.
2. These Misc. Appeals under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 have been filed against the award dated 31.3.2009 passed in Claim
Case Nos. 38/2007, 39/2007 and 40/2007 by Member, Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Datia, District Datia.
3. The facts in brief to decide these appeals are that appellants /
claimants in the aforesaid appeals preferred claim petitions under
Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation due to
injuries sustained by them in road traffic accident dated 8.10.2006
involving motorcycle bearing No. MP07-YB-6281 and Car bearing No.
MP04-TC-2252. On the fateful day, motorcycle was insured with
respondent No. 5 and Car was insured with respondent No. 3.
Respondent No. 1 - Driver filed its written statement and denied all the
facts mentioned by the appellants - claimants. Respondents No. 2 -
owner remained absent before the learned Tribunal and was proceeded
ex-parte. Respondent No. 3 - ICICI Lombard General Insurance
ALOK KUMAR
2023.02.22
17:21:23
+05'30'
11.0.23
Company filed its written statement and denied all the allegations.
Respondent No. 4 - Owner of the motorcycle filed his written statement,
supported the arguments of the claimants and claimed compensation of
Rs.50,000/- for his damaged motorcycle which was insured with
respondent No. 5 - Oriental Insurance Company. Respondent No. 5 -
Oriental Insurance Company also filed its written statement and denied
all the allegations.
4. Learned Claims Tribunal framed issues and after taking into
consideration the facts and material available on record partly allowed
the claim petition holding appellant-claimant Narendra Singh Gurjar
entitled for an amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.65,000/-,
appellant-claimant Smt. Seema Gurjar entitled for an amount of
compensation to the tune of Rs.42,000/- and appellant-claimant
Surendra Singh Gurjar entitled for an amount of compensation to the
tune of Rs.42,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum and
hold respondents No. 1 and 2 - driver and owner of the offending
vehicle liable to pay the compensation.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants - claimants argued that the
compensation awarded by learned claims tribunal is not just and proper
and is on the lower side. Learned claims tribunal also erred in not
ALOK KUMAR
2023.02.22
17:21:37
+05'30'
11.0.23
holding respondent No. 3 - insurance company of the offending car
liable to pay the compensation amount. Further argument is that
respondent No. 3 - insurance company may be directed to pay the
compensation and recover the same from respondents No. 1 and 2.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 -
insurance company supported the impugned award and argued that the
cheque issued towards the payment of premium was dishonoured,
therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation.
7. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the
available record.
8. So far as the question of liability of respondent No. 3 - insurance
company is concerned, Division Bench of this high Court in the case of
Anuradha Kaushik & Ors. vs. Varun Ground Water Development
Corporation & Ors.; [I (2007) ACC 305 (DB)] has held that "Since it is
a case of third party accident, even in the case of cancellation of the
policy on dishonour of cheque the Insurance Company is liable under
statutory liability" and upheld the award passed by the claims tribunal
whereby by relying upon various judgments of the Apex Court, claims
tribunal directed the insurance company to pay the compensation and
right of recovery was given to the insurance company.
ALOK KUMAR
2023.02.22
17:21:50
+05'30'
11.0.23
9. In view of the law laid down in the case of Anuradha Kaushik &
Ors. (supra), in the present case also the respondent No. 3 - insurance
company is directed to pay the compensation to the claimants and
recover the same from respondents No. 1 and 2 - Driver and Owner of
the offending car.
10. So far as quantum of compensation is concerned, having gone
through the evidence adduced by the both the parties and taking into
consideration the overall findings of learned claims tribunal which
appear to be just and proper, however, considering the nature of the
case, the compensation as awarded by learned claims tribunal is liable to
be enhanced by Rs.2,80,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Eighty Thousand
Only) in M.A. No. 944 of 2009 including claim award, Rs. 2,00,000 /-
(Rupees Two Lakh Only) each in M.A. Nos. 945 of 2009 and M.A.
No. 948 of 2009 including claim award along with interest which shall
be payable to appellants-claimants in addition to already awarded
amount by the claims tribunal.
11. The enhanced amount of compensation shall not carry any
interest, however, if respondent No. 3 fails to make the payment of
compensation within a period of 12 months from today, then the
enhanced amount of award shall carry penal interest at the rate of 6%
ALOK KUMAR
2023.02.22
17:22:06 +05'30'
11.0.23
per annum. Rest of the conditions as imposed by learned claims tribunal
shall remain intact.
12. M.A. Nos. 944 of 2009, 945 of 2009 and 948 of 2009 stand
disposed of in above terms.
Registry is directed to place copy of this order in the record of
connected appeals.
(SUNITA YADAV)
JUDGE
AKS
ALOK KUMAR
2023.02.22
17:22:21
+05'30'
11.0.23
