Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shriram General Insurance ... vs Rajia Bee on 13 October, 2023
Author: Vivek Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
ON THE 13 th OF OCTOBER, 2023
MISC. APPEAL No. 808 of 2015
BETWEEN:-
SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
MANAGER BRANCH PARASIA ROAD CHHINDWARA
TEHSIL AND DISTT. CHHINDWARA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI MOHD ASIF SIDDIQUI-ADVOCATE)
AND
1. RAJIA BEE W/O SHEIKH AKBAR, AGED ABOUT 45
YEAR S, DHANPETH WARD PANDURNA P.S.AND
TEHSIL PANDURNA DISTT. CHHINDWARA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SHEIKH AFSAR S/O SHEIKH AFSAR, AGED ABOUT
22 YEARS, DHANPETH WARD PANDURNA P.S.AND
TEHSIL PANDURNA DISTT. CHHINDWARA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. SHEIKH AKBAR S/O SHEIKH JABAS, AGED ABOUT
50 YEARS, DHANPETH WARD PANDURNA P.S.AND
TEHSIL PANDURNA DISTT. CHHINDWARA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. DEVIDAS S/O CHIRMI UIKE, AGED ABOUT 48
YEARS, GRAM NANDANWADI TEHSIL PANDURNA
DISTT CHHINDWARA (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. MAHENDRA S/O SHANKAR RAO BHANGE
GURUDEV WARD PANDURNA TEHSIL PANDURNA
DISTT CHHINDWARA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SK TIWARI-ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2
BY SHRI D.K.PATEL-ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3-4. )
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: S HUSHMAT
HUSSAIN
Signing time: 10/17/2023
11:05:28 AM
2
MISC. APPEAL No. 809 of 2015
BETWEEN:-
SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. ITS
MANAGER BRANCH PARASIA ROAD CHHINDWARA
TEHSIL AND DISTT. CHHINDWARA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI MOHAMMAD ASIF SIDDIQUI-ADVOCATE )
AND
1. SMT. HAFIJA BEE W/O SHEIKH SARDAR, AGED
ABOUT 40 YEARS, GRAM AMBADA CHOUKI
NANDANWADI TEH. PANDURNA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. SALMA D/O SHEIKH SARDAR, AGED ABOUT 20
YEARS, GRAM AMBADA CHOUKI NANDANWADI
TEH. PANDURNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. SHEIKH AKBAR S/O SHEIKH JABAS, AGED ABOUT
50 YEARS, DHANPETH WARD PANDURNA P.S.AND
TEHSIL PANDURNA DISTT. CHHINDWARA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. DEVIDAS S/O CHIRMI UIKE, AGED ABOUT 48
YEARS, GRAM NANDANWADI TEHSIL PANDURNA
DISTT CHHINDWARA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(NONE FOR THE RESPONDENTS 1-2.
BY SHRI D.K.PATEL-ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.4)
This appeal coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
These appeals are filed by the insurance company being aggrieved by the
order dated 11.12.2014 passed by learned First Additional Member to First
Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chhindwara in claim case
no.4/2013 and claim case no.05/2013 on the ground that offending vehicle was
Signature Not Verified
not having valid permit and therefore, in absence of permit, insurance company
Signed by: S HUSHMAT
HUSSAIN
Signing time: 10/17/2023
11:05:28 AM
either should have been exonerated or at best should have been award of pay
and recover.
2. It is submitted on behalf of the insurance company that Ritesh Dubey
was legal officer of the insurance company, was examined and had categorically
deposed about the breach of the policy of the insurance company. He had
exhibited the police as Ex.D/1 and had mentioned that there was no seizure of
driving vehicle, permit and fitness. Thus no question of RTO being summoned
arises as the insurance company cannot be expected to call the RTO of entire
country and thus, the learned Tribunal by burdening the insurance company has
committed a manifest error.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents in turn supports the impugned
award.
4. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of
Syed Basheer Ahamed and Anr. Vs. Mohd. Jameed and Anr. (2009) 2
SCC 225 to submit that onus lies on claimants to prove this fact by leading
cogent and reliable evidence before the Tribunal. He also submitted that
Tribunal has wrongly applied multiplier of 17, which should have been 14 in
terms and conditions of the judgment of law laid down by Supreme Court in
Sarla Verma. It is also submitted that under customary heads, excessive
amounts have been awarded and that needs to be reduced.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the
record. As far as plea of non availability of violation of the insurance policy on
the ground that driver was not having a valid driving licence and the bus not
having route permit is not made out inasmuch as company's witness Ritesh
Dubey has given his evidence that policy (Ex.D/1) was breached, however, he
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: S HUSHMAT
HUSSAIN
Signing time: 10/17/2023
11:05:28 AM
did not lead any evidence to the aspect that driver of the offending vehicle
namely Sheikh Akbar was not having a valid driver licence and there was no
route permit to drive the said vehicle.
6. Contention of the insurance company that it was not require to
examine RTO from the entire country is baseless submission. It has come on
record that driver was resident of Pandhurna, District-Chhindwara and the
owner of the bus too was resident of Pandhurna, District-Chhindwara and bus
was registered as UP-65-R-8288. Thus if the officer of the insurance company
would have been vigilant, he would have been require to examine only two
persons namely RTO, Chhindwara to point out as to whether any driving
license was issued in favour of Sheikh Akbar, driver of the offending bus and
whether the said bus was given any route permit to ply or in the alternative RTO
of Banaras where bus was registered and not all the RTOs from through out
India. In fact, as per the law laid down by Supreme Court in the case of
Bhuwan Singh Vs. Oriental Insurance Company and Another (2009) 5 SCC
136. Law is that burden to prove breach of specified condition of policy would
ordinarily be on the insurer. Where however, the fact of appellant driver not
being duly licenced was admitted fact, held insurer carried no burden to prove
it owing to Section 58 of the Evidence Act, 1872.
7. Thus, in the present case, since there is no admission then onus was to
be discharged by the insurer in the manner which has been detailed out above.
Since Insurance Company and his officers have failed to discharge their burden,
they are not liable to seek any exoneration.
8. As far as law laid down in the case of Syed Basheer Ahamed and
Anr. Vs. Mohd. Jameed and Anr. (2009) 2 SCC 225 , it is in regard to
factum of proof of income. Income is to be proved by the claimant. But factum
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: S HUSHMAT
HUSSAIN
Signing time: 10/17/2023
11:05:28 AM
of insurance, driving licence or permit are to be proved by the insurer,
therefore, this judgment in the case of Syed Basheer Ahamed and Anr
(supra) has no application to the facts of the case. Thus, when impugned
award is examined in the light of law laid by Supreme Court in the case of
Bhuwan Singh (supra), for the failure of the insurance company to discharge its
burden, appeals deserve to fail and are hereby dismissed.
(VIVEK AGARWAL)
JUDGE
sh
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: S HUSHMAT
HUSSAIN
Signing time: 10/17/2023
11:05:28 AM
