Ramniwas vs Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
2024 Latest Caselaw 12773 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Ramniwas vs Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. on 6 May, 2024

Author: Hirdesh

Bench: Hirdesh

                                                 --1--


IN THE               HIGH COURT                       OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                     AT I N D O R E
                                             BEFORE
                       HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH

                               ON THE 6th OF MAY, 2024

                           MISC. APPEAL No. 6398 of 2022

BETWEEN:-
BALKISASHN   TAMBOLI    S/O  SHRI  VARDICHAND  TAMBOLI
OCCUPATION: BUSINESS COLLEGE ROAD. NEEMUCH. TESHIL AND
DISTRICT NEEMUCH. (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                                                .....APPELLANT

(SHIR ROMIL MALPANI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT)

AND
1. RAMNIVAS S/O SHRI KESHURAM, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, WARAD
   NO. GRAM DHAMNIYA DISTRICT NEEMUCH. (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. DEVKARANH MINOR THR GUARDIAN FATHER RAMNIVAS S/O SHRI
   KESHURAM, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, WARD NO. 2 GRAM DHAMNIYA
   DISTRICT NEEMUCH (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. RAVINA MINOR THR GUARDIAN FATHER RAMNIVAS S/O SHRI
   KESHURAM, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, WARD NO. 2, GRAM DHAMNIYA
   DISTRICT NEEMUCH (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. BRANCH MANAGER ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED 6
   VIKAS NAGAR 14/2 NEEMUCH TEHSIL AND DISTRICT NEEMUCH
   (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. MANNALAL GAYARI S/O SHRI DEVA GAYARI, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
   OCCUPATION: DRIVER VILLAGE LODKIYA TEHSIL MANASA
   DISTRICT NEEMUCH (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                                            .....RESPONDENTS
(NONE FOR THE RESPONDNETS)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            MISC. APPEAL No. 656 of 2022

BETWEEN:-
1. RAMNIWAS S/O SHRI KESHURAM, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O WARD
                                                 --2--

   NO. 2 GRAM DHAMNIYA, NEEMUCH (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. DEVKARAN S/O SHRI RAMNIWAS MINOR THROUGH ITS NATURAL
   GUARDIAN FATHER RAMNIWAS S/O SHRI KESHURAM, AGED ABOUT
   45 YEARS, WARD NO.02, GRAM DHAMNEEYA, NEEMUCH (MADHYA
   PRADESH)
3. RAVINA D/O SHRI RAMNIWAS MINOR THROUGH ITS NATURAL
   GUARDIAN FATHER RAMNIWAS S/O SHRI KESHURAM, AGED ABOUT
   45 YEARS, WARD NO.02, GRAM DHAMNEEYA, NEEMUCH (MADHYA
   PRADESH)
                                                                             .....APPELLANTS
(SHRI ANSHUL               SHRIVASTAVA,            LEARNED           COUNSEL           FOR       THE
APPELLANTS)

AND
1. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. BRANCH MANAGER BRANCH
   OFFICE 6 VIKAS NAGAR SCHEME NO. 14/2 AMBEDKAR MARG,
   NEEMUCH (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. BALKISHAN TAMBOLEE S/O SHRI VERDECHAND TAMBOLEE, AGED
   ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS COLLEGE ROAD,
   NEEMUCH CITY, DISTRICT-NEEMUCH (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. MANNALAL GHAAYREE S/O SHRI DEVA GHAAYREE, AGED ABOUT 49
   YEARS, OCCUPATION: DRIVER GRAM LODKIYA, TEHSIL MANASA,
   DISTRICT-NEEMUCH (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                                           .....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI ABHAY CHAND JAIN, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        These appeals coming on for admission this day, the court passed
the following:

                                             ORDER

Both these appeals have been analogously heard and are being decided by this common order.

2. MA No.6398/2022 has been filed by the owner and driver of the offending vehicle and M.A. No.656/2022 has been filed by the claimant. Both the appeals are arising out of the award dated 09.11.2021 passed by First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Neemuch in Claim Case No.124/2019 on the ground of exoneration of insurance company on the

--3--

ground of permit.

3. Both the appeals were filed on the ground that tribunal has committed error in exonerating the insurance company from its liability which is against the oral and documentary evidence both available on record. Tribunal has not considered the fact that place of the accident comes under the purview of route permit, therefore, vehicle was running on route within the permissible limit.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the insurance company supported the impugned award and prayed for rejection of both the present appeals.

5. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the record, it is found that owner and driver are unable to adduce any evidence that place of accident comes under the preview of route permit so tribunal has rightly held that at the time of accident route permit was not available in favour of owner of the offending vehicle.

6. But, in the present cases, it is clearly established that claimant is third party and it is also settled that absence of valid permit or fitness certificate is not a fundamental breach but it is a technical breach and no right of recovery can be given to ensurer is not at all correct. It is undisputed that at the time of accident no route permit was available in favour of the offending vehicle so it is a breach of terms and conditions of insurance policy. Thus, insurance company is not jointly and severely liable to make payment of compensation. However, in the judgment delivered by the Supreme Court in the case of Amrit Pal Singh and Anr. Vs. TATA AIG General Insurance Company Limited and Ors., (2018) 7 SCC 558, it has been held that insurance company shall be liable to make payment of compensation amount with liberty to recover the same from owner. No

--4--

other arguments are advanced by any of the party.

7. Accordingly, the award dated 09.11.2021 passed by First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Neemuch in Claim Case No.124/2019 is hereby affirmed with the aforesaid modification. Both the appeal are allowed as indicated above.

(HIRDESH) JUDGE N.R.