The New India Assurane Co. Ltd vs Krishna Pal Sharma & Ors

PRATEEK JALAN, J. (ORAL)

The appellant – New India Assurance Company Limited [“Insurance Company”] assails an award dated 09.09.2013, by which the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [“Tribunal”] awarded a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-, alongwith interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, to respondent No. 1 – claimant. The claim proceedings arose out of a road accident which took place on 01.03.2004, in which the claimant sustained injuries.

The facts, as stated in the impugned award, are that the claimant was driving from village Bamnoli to Delhi, alongwith his goods [five jute bags containing wheat and rice], in a Tata 407 vehicle bearing registration No. UP-17-6816. At a location in Bijrol, the vehicle hit against a bullock cart and overturned, due to which the claimant sustained injuries.

The claimant was treated at Murti Nursing Hospital, Meerut, and thereafter at Lokpriya Hospital, Meerut, where he remained admitted from 01.03.2004 to 13.03.2004. He was then treated at G.B. Pant Hospital, New Delhi, for head injuries, and remained admitted from 05.04.2004 to 21.05.2004.

A disability certificate dated 14.07.2007 issued by Lok Nayak Hospital, Delhi, shows that the claimant, who was then 50 years of age, suffered head injuries with hemiparesis [Exhibit PW-1/184]. His disability was assessed at 40% permanent disability, and his condition was stated to be non-progressive and not likely to improve.

The claimant filed proceedings before the Tribunal against the appellant, who was the insurer of the vehicle, as well as against the owner and driver.

The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused as a result of rash and negligent driving by respondent No. 3, and made an award in favour of the claimant under the following heads:

By order dated 18.07.2019, passed in the presence of learned counsel for the Insurance Company and the claimant, it was recorded as follows:

The owner and the driver of the insured vehicle were arrayed as respondent Nos. 2 and 3, respectively, before the Tribunal as well as this Court. They were served in the present appeal, as recorded in the order of the learned Registrar dated 03.09.2014. However, they did not enter appearance and were set ex-parte, by an order dated 06.07.2015. Although the claimant was also set ex-parte by the said order, he subsequently entered appearance through Mr. Arun Yadav, learned counsel.

Ms. Shruti Jain, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that recovery rights ought to have been granted in favour of the Insurance Company against the driver and the owner of vehicle, as the vehicle did not have a valid permit on the date of the accident.

The written statement filed by the Insurance Company before the Tribunal has been placed on record. No ground with regard to the validity of the permit has been taken therein, although a ground was taken with regard to the driver not having a valid driving licence, which is not urged before this Court.

The driver and owner of the vehicle were both called to give evidence before the Tribunal, as witnesses on behalf of the Insurance Company. Mr. Mahesh Pal [R1-W2], who was the owner of the vehicle at the time of the accident, tendered the following evidence:

¹ Emphasis supplied.

Mr. Harendra Singh [R1-W3], who was the driver at the time of the accident, and subsequently purchased the vehicle from Mr. Mahesh Pal, testified as follows:

The Insurance Company also summoned an official from the office of the Regional Transport Office, Meerut [R1-W4] who stated as follows:

In view of the above evidence, all of which was produced by the Insurance Company itself, I am of the view that the Insurance Company has failed to make out a case for recovery against respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Although respondent No. 2 stated clearly that he had the route permit at the time of the accident, he was unable to produce the same, as the permit had been handed over to the subsequent purchaser, i.e. respondent No. 3. Respondent No. 3, who was the driver on the date of the accident, was not asked to produce the permit at all. The official of the Regional Transport Office, Meerut, produced the permit, which was exhibited as R1-W4/A. Although Ms. Jain submits before this Court that the permit was not valid for the period of the accident, no such question was put to the witness, nor was he asked to produce any other permit.

In these facts and circumstances, I find no merit in the present appeal, which is dismissed.

By an order dated 21.11.2013, execution of the impugned award was stayed, subject to the Insurance Company depositing the entire awarded amount, alongwith up-to-date interest, with the learned Registrar General. The claimant was permitted to withdraw part of the deposited amount by an order dated 18.07.2019. The balance amount lying in deposit, alongwith interest accrued thereon, be released to the claimant forthwith.

The appeal, alongwith pending application, stands disposed of in terms of the aforesaid.

Statutory deposit, if any, be refunded to the Insurance Company.