AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P. Sam Koshy, J
Present is an appeal filed by the Insurance Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act assailing the award dated 27/04/2017 passed by
the learned Fourth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 107/2016.
Vide the impugned award, the Tribunal in a death case under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act has awarded a compensation of
Rs.5,46,000/- with interest @ 8.5% per annum from the date of application.
The counsel for the Insurance Company has challenged the impugned award on two grounds. Firstly, the Tribunal has not taken into consideration
the contention of the Insurance Company that the accident occurred because of the involvement of two vehicles and that the other vehicle and its
owner and Insurance Company have not been made a party. The second ground is that, the policy which was issued by the present appellant reveal
that, the previous policy which the owner had produced was issued in favour of some other person, not to the respondent No.6 herein and the vehicle
also was a different vehicle. Therefore, the contention of the counsel for the Insurance Company is that, the policy has been obtained by suppression
of material facts and by misleading the Insurance Company and thus under the provision of Section 149-2, the policy has to be deemed as a void policy
and for which the Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay the compensation.
Perusal of record would show that, the claim application was infact a claim application under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act.
So far as the claim under Section 163-A is concerned, the claimants had a option to seeking the compensation from either of the vehicles involved in
the accident and if the claimants has preferred an application against the owner of the vehicle which he was driving, it cannot be said to be in any
manner either erroneous or not maintainable.
So far as the second ground is concerned, what reveal is the fact that, the date of accident in the instant case is 03/05/2015. The policy was got
verified by the Insurance Company after about more than one year from the date of accident i.e. on 27/07/2016. Thus, what clearly reveal is that, till
the date of accident, the policy was never got verified by the Insurance Company and thus on the date of accident, the policy was infact a valid policy.
Under the given circumstances, the ground which has now been taken by the Insurance Company may not be sustainable in the light of the fact
that, till the date of accident, the policy was never declared to be void nor had the Insurance Company cared to get the policy verified nor had it
cancelled the policy before the date of accident.
Therefore, this Court does not find any strong case made out by the counsel for the appellant calling for an interference with the impugned award.
The appeal thus fails and is accordingly rejected.