The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs Jai Singh and Others

Arun Bhansali, J.—These appeals are directed against the judgment and award dt. 27.07.2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhadra, District Hanumangarh (''the Tribunal''), whereby, the Tribunal for the death of one Kalu Ram and injury to one Jai Singh has awarded compensation of Rs. 6,55,300/- and Rs. 1,25,000/- respectively. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the vehicle in question was being plied beyond the permit granted to the said vehicle and on account of violation of the permit conditions, the appellant Insurance Company cannot be held liable. It was also submitted that deceased Kalu Ram had contributed to the accident and, therefore, the award should have been passed taking into consideration his contributory negligence.

I have considered the arguments raised by learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the award.

The facts of the appeals are that though contentions were raised in reply, the appellant Insurance Company has failed to lead any evidence in support of its contention regarding violation of the permit conditions and contributory negligence, if any. The Tribunal while dealing with the defence raised by the appellant Insurance Company has clearly held that no evidence was led by the appellant Insurance Company to show that the accident occurred outside municipal area Bhadra, for which, the vehicle in question i.e. tempo was granted permit to ply. In absence of any evidence to indicate that the place of accident was beyond the said area i.e. Municipal Board, Bhadra it cannot be said that the conditions for permit were violated by the insured.

Besides the above, this Court in the case of R.K. College Vs. Ramesh Chand and Others, has held that violation of permit conditions i.e. plying the vehicle beyond the area prescribed in the permit does not violate the policy condition, while interpreting provisions of Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

So far as issue of contributory negligence is concerned the learned counsel has taken the Court through the site map prepared by the police indicating the place of accident marked as Exhibit-3. From a bare perusal of the said Exhibit-3, it appears that the motor cycle was plying on the correct side of the road and the tempo struck it by going down on the wrong side of the road, as such, it cannot be said to be a case of contributory negligence. In view of the above, no case is made out for interference in the present appeals. Hence, the appeals being devoid of merit are dismissed. The stay applications are also dismissed.