United India Insurance Co Ltd v. Satnam Singh & ORS
-1-
!"
# $%&%!'( )* *
+ ,
** % %!' - . -&/& + +
+ ** &0!'# '
(
1, +* + + +
+ +
*
- 3 ! "
#
$ % &' &( " ) !
+ $ &% &( " ) !
#, ! ) "
" * " ) " ) ! !
" - ! #
!
-2- ( . ' &( &
/! * 0 #! ! #
" ex parte.
- ! !#0 * ! "
1!
23 "
" "
0 * 4!,54 # "
* ! 0 ! ) 67 " "
" 1 ! "
! "
) 4 #! * * "
0 ) " ) " ! '
1 ) * 0!" 0 " "
) " 8 1! % ! ! #
"
! ! * "12. The respondent no.1 has produced on record copy of his driving licence which appears to be valid on the date of accident in question. The counsel for respondent no.3 failed to prove that the aforesaid driving licence was forged and fabricated and it was invalid on the date of accident. However, the contesting respondent
-3no.1 failed to prove that he and his owner were having valid route permit and fitness certificate to ply the offending Truck"Trolla on the day of alleged accident. Therefore, I partly decide this issue in favour of respondent no.3 and against respondents no.1 and 2 with the findings that respondents no.1 and 2 were not having valid and effective route permit and fitness certificate to ply the offending vehicle on the road on the day of alleged accident. XXXX
14. In view of my findings on the aforesaid issues, the claim petition is accepted, with costs, and an award of Rs. 15,02,000/" is passed in favour of claimants, which all the respondents are liable to pay jointly and severally, but the first liability to the pay the compensation amount is of the insurance company. In addition to it, the claimants are also entitled for interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till actual realization. Out of this award amount, claimants Lal Chand and Rani (parents) will be entitled to Rs.2,02,000/" i.e. Rs.1,01,000/" each, claimant Ragini (widow) will be entitled to Rs.6,00,000/" and claimants Sunny and Krishna (minor sons) will be entitled to Rs.7,00,000/" i.e. Rs.3,50,000/" each. The share of minor claimants Sunny and Krishna will be deposited in some Nationalized bank in the shape of FDR, which they will be entitled to withdraw on attaining the age of majority. Counsel fee is assessed as Rs.3,000/". Memos of costs be prepared. File be consigned to record room."
& 1 0 ! " "
# "
* ! .! "
) # ) 0 1 * ) "
* ! ! 0 0
-4- ! ) 1 ! !0 !" ! 0) ) " 5) 0 ) " "
" 0) 0
!"0 9:# .!0 /!
* # "
2) 7 # + 4 ; 0 ! !5 "5.We are of the considered view that appeals need to be allowed to the extent of ndings returned by the High Court, holding the Insurer alone, liable to pay the amount, to be, in our view erroneous, for, as has emerged from the record, the respondent! owner did not have a valid route permit to ply the vehicle at the time of occurrence of the accident. This was a material breach of the Insurance Policy.
12. Such a nding, we nd to be erroneous and not borne out from the record. The vehicle in question did not have a valid route permit as on the date of occurrence of the accident, which was on 22.10.2018. Mere submission of application to obtain a route permit prior to the occurrence of the accident, ipso facto, would not make the vehicle worthy of being plied, as a stage carriage, on the road. The route permit for plying such a vehicle is a condition precedent under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Hence, the aforesaid ndings need to be reversed to this e/ect. As such, we hold that even though the appellant (Insurer) would pay the amount to the claimants but would be entitled to recover the same, both from the owner and the driver of the vehicle in question."
1 * " /! 0 #
-5- ( ") * 0!" & &( 0 ; * ) * 0 0 0 8 *
"
0 ! ) '/ -4 )-#2
+ + Ayub/Saahil
Whether speaking/reasoned :
Yes/No Whether reportable :
Yes/No