High CourtsDivision Bench(2001) 12 AHC CK 0007

Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Budhiya and Others

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 3 December 2001 · Citation: (2003) ACJ 691

HON’BLE JUDGES
V.M. Sahai, J · Sudhir Narain, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
F.A.F.O. No. 1779 of 2001

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 333 words

Sudhir Narain, J.—This appeal is directed against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal dated 6.9.2001 awarding a sum of Rs, 1,67,000 to the claimants-respondents.

2.

The claim petition was filed with the allegations that the deceased Anirudh Ben was travelling from Barhaj to Deoria by bus No. UP 52-A 5410. The bus dashed against the tree. He received injuries and died leaving behind him his widow and 6 minor children as dependants. He was aged about 40 years and was earning by labour work.

3.

The claim petition was contested by the appellant on various grounds. Tribunal has recorded a finding that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the bus driver and on consideration of evidence awarded a sum of Rs. 1,67,000 as compensation.

4.

We have heard Mr. S.K. Mehrotra, the learned Counsel for the appellant who contended that the bus was being driven with 57 passengers while only 19 passengers were permitted. The Hon''ble Apex Court in B.V. Nagaraju Vs. M/s. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Officer, Hassan, has held that even if the number of the passengers travelling in the vehicle are more than permitted in terms of insurance policy, still the insurance company is liable to pay compensation.

5.

The next contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the bus driver had no valid licence and he did not furnish any particulars of the driving licence. The Tribunal has also considered this aspect and came to the conclusion that the burden to prove was on the appellant to establish this fact. We do not find that the view taken by the Tribunal is erroneous.

6.

We do not find any merit in the appeal and it is, accordingly, dismissed.

7.

The amount of Rs. 25,000 deposited in this Court by the appellant shall be remitted to the Tribunal within one month from today by the Registry and shall be adjusted in the deposits to be made by the appellant.