The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Smt. Hansaro

Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, J

This appeal has been filed under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the award dated 14.05.2015 passed by the Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surajpur, District-Surajpur, Chhattisgarh in Motor Accident Claim No.77/2013 (“Smt. Hansaro & Others vs. Premchand Agrawal & Others”). (hereinafter referred to as “award in question”).

Brief facts of the case are that on 03.03.2013, 45-year-old Bifal Singh was going to his house in village Salhi on his motorcycle at that time respondent No. 6 Chhatrapal Vishwakarma was driving a jeep bearing registration No. CG-15-ZD-1874 (offending vehicle) in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motorcycle of Bifal Singh due to which Bifal Singh fell and sustained grievous injuries and died. His legal heirs, who are respondents No. 1 to 4, filed a claim application under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the driver (Chhatrapal Vishwakarma) of the offending vehicle, registered owner (Premchand Agarwal) and the appellant (insurance company) on which after due proceedings, the Tribunal passed an award of Rs. 35,13,432/- in favour of the legal heirs of the deceased. The appellant was found to be the insurer of the offending vehicle and was held liable to pay the aforesaid compensation amount.

The appellant/insurance company has filed this appeal challenging the award passed against it. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that on the date of the accident i.e. 03.03.2013, the registration certificate of the offending vehicle was not valid, rather its registration had expired, therefore, the appellant is not liable for compensation as there was a breach of insurance policy conditions. He further contended that the monthly income of the deceased should have been arrived at after deducting the Sunday wages of Rs. 3,024/-, overtime wages of Rs. 1,323/- and quarterly bonus wages of Rs. 4,152/- from his monthly income, which the Tribunal has not done and hence it is erroneous. The said Sunday wages and overtime wages should not be added to the deceased's income. In support of his arguments, he placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the matter of Hilya Bai @ Hirla Bai & Others v. Kokila Prasad Kenwat & Others passed in MAC No. 285 of 2015 on 23.03.2021. The learned counsel for the appellant prays to allow the appeal and prays for exoneration of the liability of payment of compensation.

Learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 4 submits that the computation of income of the deceased is based on the income tax return (Ex.P-5) and not on the salary slip. The salary slip has not been proved and no facts have been brought out during the evidence regarding the items whose amount has been requested not to be included in the income. Thus, the argument raised by the appellant regarding the computation of income is not acceptable. So far as the question of registration certificate is concerned, the insurance policy issued by the appellant insurance company that is Ex. N.A.-1 is insured on the registration number of the vehicle itself and the insurance company cannot deny the registration number. If the tax after the registration period has not been paid, then it does not violate the insurance policy conditions. The conclusion given by the Tribunal in this regard is correct that there has been no violation of the insurance policy conditions, therefore the argument of the insurance company is not acceptable and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

Learned counsel for respondents No. 5 & 6 supported the impugned award and opposed the contention of the appellant that there was breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.

I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record of the Tribunal including award impugned.

It is noteworthy that as per the insurance policy Ex. N.A.-1 produced by the appellant, the offending vehicle was insured with the appellant on the date of the accident. If the registration certificate was not renewed despite its expiry, then the registered owner of the offending vehicle may be held liable under the Motor Vehicles Act, but the appellant/insurance company has insured the vehicle on the basis of the same registration number and the insurance company cannot deny the fact. There is no illegality or error in the conclusion given by the Tribunal regarding non-violation of insurance policy conditions, hence there is no need to interfere with the award impugned.

The income of the deceased has been calculated by the Tribunal at paras 11 and 12 of the award impugned on the basis of income tax return (Ex.P-5) submitted by the claimants, according to which his annual income has been estimated at Rs. 3,61,748/- and on that basis the compensation amount has been calculated. The salary slip on the basis of which the learned counsel of the appellant/insurance company has argued for deducting the amount of some items from his monthly income, that salary slip is neither marked as an exhibit nor has it been considered and nor has any question been asked nor objection raised by the insurance company in that regard during the cross-examination of the witnesses of the claimants. In such a situation, that salary slip is not admissible in evidence, therefore, the argument made in this appeal that the amount of items mentioned in that salary slip should be subtracted from the income of the deceased to calculate the income of the deceased does not acceptable and no error is reflected in the annual income calculated on the basis of the Income Tax return. Thus, the argument of the appellant/insurance company that the compensation amount has been calculated on a higher side than reality is also not acceptable.

In the above situation, this court finds that the arguments raised by the appellant/insurance company in the appeal are not acceptable. The violation of insurance policy conditions has also not been proved. In the light of the facts and evidence available on record, the conclusion of the tribunal is found just and proper, in which no interference is required. Thus, the appeal of the appellant/insurance company is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.

The record of the tribunal along with a copy of this order be sent back forthwith for compliance and necessary action, if any.