Chhagan Ram And Anr vs Union Of India

Appellants/non-petitioners have preferred the present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming the following reliefs:-

“It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this appeal may kindly be allowed, finding regarding the negligency and assessment of amount of

compensation in the head of loss to the property may kindly be modified as prayed above and the respondent non-petitioner No.3 Insurance Company

may kindly be held liable to satisfy the full extent of award amount.â€​

An unfortunate accident had happened on 21.08.1997 at 4.30 P.M. when Nayab Subedar LD Mehento alongwith Nayak Nagraj were on army duty

and had parked their Jeep bearing registration No.BA 84 B 30350 at ICSD Canteen in front of the parking place of a gas agency. The non-applicant

No.1 was driving a Bus bearing registration No.RRM 1066 rashly and negligently and struck the Jeep standing in the proper parking area, causing

death of Army personnel, who was on duty. The Jeep also got badly damaged.

Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the restricting the liability of the Insurance Company to Rs.6,000/-was not appropriate, as they

had paid extra premium for enhanced liability of the Insurance Company, and thus, the Insurance Company was liable to pay the same.

Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the damages have been granted without establishing the exact nature of loss caused to the

Union of India. It is also contended that the order passed by the learned Tribunal was contrary to law, as it is not having any baseline regarding the

damage in question.

Learned counsel for the appellant is, however, not in a position to furnish any proof of the extra premium said to have been paid by the appellants to

the Insurance Company.

Learned counsel for the respondent, however, submitted that the order passed by the learned Tribunal is a reasoned order and the limited clause of

Rs.6,000/- was endorsed in the policy.

Learned counsel for the respondent also submitted that the damage caused was apparent, as even Army man on duty succumbed to the injuries,

when the bus struck the Jeep, even while standing at the proper parking place. It is also contended that the negligence is writ large.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the order passed by the learned

Tribunal is correct in the eye of law. Once the issue has been dealt with while deciding issues No.2 and 3 that no extra premium was paid and the

negligence was not attributable beyond Rs.6,000/-, then the submission made on behalf of the appellant cannot be accepted. The record has already

been weeded out and the matter is very old.

Learned counsel for the appellant tried to demonstrate from the policy cover note that an extra premium of Rs.3200/-was paid, but on a bare

perusal of the policy note shown by the learned counsel for the appellant, this Court does not find any specific demarcation which would indicate that

the Insurance Company had the enhanced liability.

This Court finds that there is no proof on record to show that any extra premium had been paid. Moreover, the report of the technical expert,

which was Exhibit-2, has been dealt with at length by the learned Tribunal while passing the impugned order. The negligence of striking the Jeep in the

parking area by Bus itself points out that it was a case of gross negligence, and thus, no case of interference is made out in the present appeal.

Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.