Madhya Pradesh High Court
Manager vs Sanjeev Mishra on 20 January, 2025
Author: Avanindra Kumar Singh
Bench: Avanindra Kumar Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:4098
1 MA-1757-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH
ON THE 20th OF JANUARY, 2025
MISC. APPEAL No. 1757 of 2016
MANAGER
Versus
SANJEEV MISHRA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rakesh Kumar Jain - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Alok Tiwari - Advocate for the respondent No.1/ claimant.
ORDER
Record is received.
I.A. No. 27417 of 2024 is an application under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act for condonation of delay in paying process fee for service of
notice on respondent No.2.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he does not want to
press aforesaid I.A.
Accordingly, I.A. No. 27417 of 2024 stands dismissed as withdrawn.
Consequently, the appeal stands dismissed against respondent No.2 Akhilesh
Yadav, who is owner and driver of the offending vehicle.
It is submitted by counsel for respondent No.1 Sanjeev Mishra i.e.
claimant that he has filed cross-appeal for enhancement of compensation but
since this appeal has been dismissed against respondent No.2 Akhilesh
Yadav, who is owner and driver of the offending vehicle, therefore, the
question of enhancement of compensation cannot be decided in this case,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:4098
2 MA-1757-2016
however, claimant is free to file separate Misc. Appeal for enhancement of
compensation.
Heard on admission.
The appeal is admitted for final hearing.
With the consent of the learned counsel for the rival parties, matter is
finally heard and disposed of as below.
Learned Third Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rewa in
Claim Case No. 176/2013 (Sanjiv Mishra Vs. Shri Akhilesh Yadav and
another) vide award dated 22.02.2016 has awarded a compensation of Rs.
29,71,300/- along with interest.. In paragraph 12 it is mentioned that
Insurance Company took a plea that auto had no permit but in parargraph 19
of the award direction is given to the Insurance Company to pay the amount
of compensation to the claimant and recover the same from the auto owner
and driver.
Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 / claimant submits that
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amrit Paul Singh and anther Vs. Tata
AIG General Insurance Company Limited and others reported in (2018)7
SCC 558 has held in paragraph 24 as below :-
"24. In the case at hand, it is clearly demonstrable from the
materials brought on record that the vehicle at the time of the
accident did not have a permit. The appellants had taken the stand
that the vehicle was not involved in the accident. That apart, they
had not stated whether the vehicle had temporary permit or any
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:4098
3 MA-1757-2016
other kind of permit. The exceptions that have been carved out
under Section 66 of the Act, needless to emphasise, are to be
pleaded and proved. The exceptions cannot be taken aid of in the
course of an argument to seek absolution from liability. Use of a
vehicle in a public place without a permit is a fundamental
statutory infraction. We are disposed to think so in view of the
series of exceptions carved out in Section 66. The said situations
cannot be equated with absence of licence or a fake licence or a
licence for different kind of vehicle, or, for that matter, violation
of a condition of carrying more number of passengers. Therefore,
the principles laid down in Swaran Singh [National Insurance Co.
Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, (2004) 3 SCC 297 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 733]
and Lakhmi Chand [Lakhmi Chand v. Reliance General Insurance,
(2016) 3 SCC 100 : (2016) 2 SCC (Civ) 45] in that regard would
not be applicable to the case at hand. That apart, the insurer had
taken the plea that the vehicle in question had no permit. It does
not require the wisdom of the "Tripitaka", that the existence of a
permit of any nature is a matter of documentary evidence. Nothing
has been brought on record by the insured to prove that he had a
permit of the vehicle. In such a situation, the onus cannot be cast
on the insurer. Therefore, the Tribunal as well as the High Court
had directed that the insurer was required to pay the compensation
amount to the claimants with interest with the stipulation that the
insurer shall be entitled to recover the same from the owner and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:4098
4 MA-1757-2016
the driver. The said directions are in consonance with the
principles stated in Swaran Singh [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Swaran Singh, (2004) 3 SCC 297 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 733] and other
cases pertaining to pay and recover principle."
Therefore, in the light of the aforesaid judgment, order of pay and
recover cannot be assailed by the Insurance Company hence no change can
be made in the order passed by the learned Tribunal.
Accordingly, the present appeal filed by the Insurance Company is
hereby dismissed.
(AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE
VSG
