AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rajesh Tandon, J.—Heard Shri Pankaj Purohit, counsel for the appellant and Shri R.P. Nautiyal, counsel for the respondent No. 1.
This is insurer''s appeal.
By the present appeal, filed u/s 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the appellant has prayed for setting aside the judgment and award dated 21.7.2004 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chamoli in M.A.C.P. No. 9 of 2002.
Briefly stated, a motor accident claim petition No. 9 of 2002 was made u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for compensation of Rs. 4,30,000/- on account of death of Magan Singh (hereinafter referred to as ''the deceased'') in a motor accident taken place on 30.4.2001. According to the claimant, on 30.4.2001 the deceased was coming to Chamoli from Karnprayag by vehicle No. UP 06-3233. The said vehicle was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver as a result of which the vehicle met with an accident resulting into the death of the deceased. It has been stated that the deceased was 61 years old and was doing the contracting work. He was earning a sum of Rs. 5,000/- per month. Further, it has been stated that the dead body of the deceased was found in the river and its postmortem was carried on as anonymous person. The claimant has claimed a sum of Rs. 4,30,000/- towards compensation.
The owner and the driver of vehicle in question have filed a written statement stating therein that the driver of vehicle No. UP 06-3233 was a skilled and experienced driver and he was having a valid driving license. The driver has tried to escape from the accident but in vain. It has been submitted that the said vehicle was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company. Neither the owner nor the driver is liable to indemnify the compensation.
A written statement has been filed on behalf of the Oriental Insurance Company. It has been submitted that the driver was not holding valid driving license, registration certificate, permit, insurance policy, etc. The insurance company is not liable to indemnify the compensation.
On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:
1- D;k izkfFkZuh Jh erh dqUrh nsoh ds ifr exuflag dh fnukad 30-4-2001 dks le; djhc 12-45 cts fnu es okgu la[;k ;w-ih-06&3233 ds pkyd dh rsth o ykijokgh ls pykus ls e`R;q gq;h \\
2- D;k nq?kZVukxzLr okgu ds ikl nq?kZVuk ds le; oS/k M�kbZfoax ykbZlsal] iath;u] fQVusl] chek ikWfylh] LoPNrk izek.k i=] vkj-lh- vkfn dkxtkr Fks \\
3- D;k e`rd exuflag nq?kZVukxzLr okgu esa ,d oS/k lokjh Fkk \\
4- D;k ;kphx.k {kfriwfrZ dh /kujkf''k izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gS] ;fn gkW rks fdl i{kdkj ls \\
While deciding as to whether the accident in question had taken place due to rash and negligent driving by its driver resulting into the death of Magan Singh and as to whether the deceased Magan Singh was a bona fide passenger in the vehicle in question, the claims tribunal has taken into consideration the statement of P.W. 1 Kunti Devi who was an ocular witness of the accident. She has deposed that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of vehicle in question. Further, P.W.2 Darshan Singh has deposed that he had boarded his father in the bus No. UP 06-3233. The claims tribunal has recorded the finding that the accident in question had taken place due to rash and negligent driving by its driver resulting into the death of the deceased. I do not find any infirmity in the findings recorded by the claims tribunal.
While deciding the issue as to whether the driver was having valid driving license, fitness certificate, registration certificate, cleanliness certificate, etc., the claims tribunal has placed reliance on the statement of D.W. 1 Shri V.K. Garg, Deputy Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited who has deposed that the owner of the vehicle in question had got the insurance cover note in collusion with Vimal Bahuguna, Development Officer by playing fraud with the insurance company and for the said act, Vimal Bahuguna was punished. Further, on behalf of the insurance company it has been admitted that the premium money of the insurance with regard to the vehicle in question is deposited with the insurance company. The claims tribunal has recorded the finding that since the insurance policy has not been revoked and the money towards premium of the insurance policy is lying with the insurance company, the insurance company cannot be avoided from its liability to indemnify the claim. However, the claims tribunal has given the recoverable rights to the insurance company to recover the amount from its employee.
While deciding with regard to quantum of compensation, the claims tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000/" towards compensation and Rs. 2,000/-towards funeral expenses.
Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the cover note has been procured by playing fraud by Vimal Bahuguna, Development Officer to Branch Manager of the appellant insurance company on the very same day and the cover not was issued with mala fide intention in respect of the vehicle in question. Since, it is admitted fact that the money towards insurance premium is lying with the insurance policy and the insurance cover note has not been revoked, I do not find any illegality in the findings recorded by the claims tribunal while holding that the insurance company is liable to indemnify the claim. Further, since the recoverable rights have already been granted to the insurance company to recover the same from its employee in question, I do not find any merit in the appeal so as to interfere with the judgment and award passed by the claims tribunal. Appeal, therefore, is liable to be dismissed. Consequently, appeal is dismissed with costs.