Madhya Pradesh High Court
United India Insurance Company Limited vs Banti on 26 June, 2025
1 MA-212-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
ON THE 26th OF JUNE, 2025
MISC. APPEAL No. 211 of 2013
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
Versus
SMT. ASHA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Arvind Kumar Agarwal - Advocate for the appellant.
None for respondent No.1 though served.
Shri Arun Sharma - Advocate for respondents No.2 & 3/driver &
owner of the vehicle.
WITH
CIVIL REVISION No. 20 of 2013
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
Versus
LALARAM AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Arvind Kumar Agarwal - Advocate for the petitioner.
None for respondent No.1 though served.
Shri Arun Sharma - Advocate for respondents No.2 & 3/driver &
owner of the vehicle.
MISC. APPEAL No. 212 of 2013
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
Versus
BANTI AND OTHERS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MADHU
SOODAN PRASAD
Signing time: 6/30/2025
10:42:35 AM
2 MA-212-2013
Appearance:
Shri Arvind Kumar Agarwal - Advocate for the appellant.
None for respondent No.1 though served.
Shri Arun Sharma - Advocate for respondents No.2 & 3/driver &
owner of the vehicle.
MISC. APPEAL No. 213 of 2013
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
Versus
MUKESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Arvind Kumar Agarwal - Advocate for the appellant.
None for respondent No.1 though served.
Shri Arun Sharma - Advocate for respondents No.2 & 3/driver &
owner of the vehicle.
ORDER
This order shall govern disposal of all the three Misc. Appeals and one
civil revision as they arise out of common award dated 01.11.2012 passed by
the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sheopur in Claim cases
Nos.01/2012, 02/2012, 03/2012 and 05/2012; whereby, learned Claims
Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.96,600/- in favour of claimant
Mukesh, Rs.35,000/- in favour of claimant Ashabai, Rs.3,87,000/- in favour
of claimant Banti and Rs.9,000/- in favour of claimant Lalaram.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 13.05.2011 the claimants
along with others were travelling in Jeep No.MP-33 D-0192 from Vijaypur
to Narvar Lodi Devi Mata temple. Respondent- Bharatlal was driving the
3 MA-212-2013
said jeep rashly & negligently, due to which the offending vehicle capsized,
as a result of which the claimants sustained injuries.
3 . It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company that
the policy Ex.D/3 is a private car act only policy. Only premium has been
paid for third party as well as for employee under Workmen Compensation
Act, but no premium has been paid for the passenger travelling in the
vehicle, therefore, the claimants are not covered under this policy, and
therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation at all.
There is no question of pay and recover arises. He placed reliance on the
following judgments :-
(i) National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Balakrishnan and another, 2013
ACJ 199
(ii) Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Surendra Nath Loomba and others,
2013 ACJ 321
(iii) M.P. Electricity Board vs. Laxminaraya & Ors., 2008(1) T.A.C.
88 (M.P.)
(iv) Smt. Guddi and others vs. Pooran Singh & Ors. decided on
10.11.2022 in M.A.No.976/2011
Therefore, the learned Tribunal erred in issuing the order as regards pay and
recover and prays for setting aside the impugned award to the extent it
directs the Insurance Company to first pay the compensation to the claimants
and then recover it from the owner and driver of the offending vehicle.
4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/driver and
owner of the offending vehicle submits that neither Insurance Company has
4 MA-212-2013
pleaded such objection in their reply nor any issue has been framed in this
regard nor any evidence has been adduced in this regard to show that policy
(Ex.D/3) was only private car act policy and no premium was paid for the
passenger travelling in the vehicle, and therefore, the claimants are not
covered under the policy. The Insurance Company has pleaded and proved
the fact that offending vehicle was being driven in violation of the conditions
of the policy. It was used as a commercial vehicle and the driver of the
vehicle did not have any driving licence to drive commercial vehicle. On
both the counts, the case is of violation of conditions of the policy. Learned
Tribunal has also found it proved and considered the evidence on record in
this regard in para 10 to 13 and thereafter in para 18 to 23. It found that
breach of policy conditions was proved, and therefore, Insurance Company is
not responsible for the compensation, but learned Tribunal in para 40 has
considered the law in this regard and held that since the conditions of policy
has been violated, therefore, by statutory obligation the Insurance Company
is liable to pay the compensation and then to recover the same from the
owner and driver of the offending vehicle. There is no argument put forth by
learned counsel for the Insurance Company that because of only private car
act policy, the Insurance Company was not at all liable to pay the
compensation, even on the principle of pay and recover. Therefore, the
conclusion of learned Tribunal is based on the and evidence on record. There
is no ground for interference in those findings. Hence, prayed for rejection of
the appeals.
Learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on the
5 MA-212-2013
following decisions :
(i)Harish Kori vs. Raju K. Rajvardhan and others, 2014 ACJ 1049
(ii) Biraji alias Brijraji and another vs. Surya Pratap and others, (2020)
10 SCC 729
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE
ms/-
