Shriram General Insurance Co. ... vs Kiran Bai @ Sumit Rani
2023 Latest Caselaw 3417 MP

                                                                     1
                                         IN    THE     HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                            AT JABALPUR
                                                                  BEFORE
                                                    HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
                                                        ON THE 27 th OF FEBRUARY, 2023
                                                          MISC. APPEAL No. 2983 of 2020

                                        BETWEEN:-
                                        SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. THR. CLAIM
                                        INCHARGE THROUGH ITS MANAGER M.P. NAGAR
                                        BHOPAL PLOT NO. 1642-43 NAPIER TOWN IN FRONT OF
                                        INCOME TAX OFFICE JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                            .....APPELLANT
                                        (BY SHRI ADITYA NARAYAN SHARMA - ADVOCATE)

                                        AND
                                        1.    KIRAN BAI @ SUMIT RANI W/O BHARAT SINGH,
                                              AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDENT OF HINOTIYA
                                              (BAMNAI)    P.S.   SULTANGANJ      TEHSIL
                                              BEGUMGANJ, DISTRICT RAISEN (MADHYA
                                              PRADESH)

                                        2.    SEETARAM S/O BHARAT SINGH, AGED ABOUT 22
                                              YEARSRESIDENT OF HINOTIYA (BAMNAI) P.S.
                                              SULTANGANJ TEHSIL BEGUMGANJ, DISTRICT
                                              RAISEN, (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                        3.    KU.RADHA D/O BHARAT SINGH, AGED ABOUT 20
                                              YEARS, RESIDENT OF HINOTIYA (BAMNAI) P.S.
                                              SULTANGANJ TEHSIL BEGUMGANJ, DISTRICT
                                              RAISEN (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                        4.    KESHAV S/O BHARAT SINGH, AGED ABOUT 18
                                              YEARSRESIDENT OF HINOTIYA (BAMNAI) P.S.
                                              SULTANGANJ TEHSIL BEGUMGANJ, DISTRICT
                                              RAISEN (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                        5.    KU.RUKMANI D/O BHARAT SINGH, AGED ABOUT
                                              16   YEARS, OCCUPATION: MINOR THROUGH
                                              MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN KIRAN BAI
Signature Not Verified
  SAN                                         @ SUMIT RANI W/O BHARAT SINGH RESIDENT
                                              OF HINOTIYA (BAMNAI) P.S. SULTANGANJ TEHSIL
Digitally signed by ASHWANI PRAJAPATI
Date: 2023.02.27 19:38:16 IST
                                              BEGUMGANJ, DISTRICT RAISEN (MADHYA
                                              PRADESH)
                                                                          2
                                        6.    THAAN SINGH S/O KISHAN SINGH, AGED ABOUT
                                              66 YEARS, HINOTIYA (BAMNAI) P.S. SULTANGANJ
                                              TEH. BEGUMGANJ DIST. RAISEN (MADHYA
                                              PRADESH)

                                        7.    SIYARANI W/O THAAN SINGH, AGED ABOUT 56
                                              YEARS, RESIDENT OF HINOTIYA (BAMNAI) P.S.
                                              SULTANGANJ TEHSIL BEGUMGANJ DISTRICT
                                              RAISEN (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                        8.    ZAHID ALI S/O ZAFAR ALI, AGED ABOUT 40
                                              YEARS, WARD NO. 10 MAKBARA MOHALLA PS
                                              AND TEHSIL BEGUMGANJ, DISTRICT RAISEN
                                              (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                                   .....RESPONDENTS
                                        (SHRI AKSHANSH SHRIVASTAVA - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTSNO. 1
                                        TO 7 AND SHRI RAM NARAYAN SHAH - ADVOCATE FOR THE
                                        RESPONDENT NO.8)

                                              This appeal coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
                                        following:
                                                                          ORDER

This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, being aggrieved of award dated 15.09.2020, passed by learned III Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Begamganj, District Raisen, in M.A.C.C.No.37/2018, on the ground that learned Claims Tribunal has overlooked the fact that vehicle in question bearing registration No.MP-38-R/0563, is a passenger vehicle and not a goods vehicle. Therefore, in terms of the provisions contained in Section 66(3)(i) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, exemption from permit to a vehicle having gross vehicle weight not exceeding 3,000 kgs will not be applicable as according to the appellant, the vehicle in question was a passenger vehicle. Learned Claims Tribunal has

Signature Not Verified overlooked this fact otherwise the award should have been that of pay and SAN

recover.

Digitally signed by ASHWANI PRAJAPATI Date: 2023.02.27 19:38:16 IST

Shri Akshansh Shrivastava, learned counsel for the claimants and Shri

Ram Narayan Shah, learned counsel for the respondent No.8, support the award and submit that no indulgence is required.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, it is evident that Ex.D/3 permit was not available on the date of the accident. Since permit was not available on the date of the accident and though fitness was available, in opinion of this Court in the light of the judgment of Supreme Court in Amrit Paul Singh Vs. Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2018) 7 SCC 558], the orders of pay and recover should have been passed.

Shri Aditya Narayan Sharma has though placed reliance on two judgments of this High Court in Ram Sujan Tiwari Vs. Sita Gupta and others [III (2009) ACC 455 (DB)] and in case of Bariyam Singh Vs. Indira Pandey and others [IV (2017) ACC 138 M.P.], wherein, in absence of fitness and permit, High Court has exonerated the insurance company, but the fact of the matter is that after these judgments, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amrit Pal (supra) has held that in such cases principle of pay and recover will be applicable.

Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed. It is directed that insurance company shall pay the compensation to the claimants within sixty days from today, if not already paid and shall be entitled to recover it from the owner-

driver of the offending vehicle.

In above terms, this appeal is disposed of. Let record of the Claims Tribunal be sent back. Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by ASHWANI PRAJAPATI Date: 2023.02.27 19:38:16 IST

(VIVEK AGARWAL)

JUDGE A.Praj.

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by ASHWANI PRAJAPATI Date: 2023.02.27 19:38:16 IST