Oriental Insurance
Co. Ltd. Vs. Vimla Devi And Ors. [2009] INSC 256 (9 February 2009)
Judgment
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. OF 2009 (Arising out of
SLP ) Nos. 11440-11442 of 2005) Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. ....Appellant
Versus Vimla Devi and Ors. ....Respondents
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT,
J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Challenge in these
appeals is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Uttaranchal High Court.
Three appeals filed by the appellant against the common judgment and award
dated 10.10.2003 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, District Judge,
Tehri Garhwal (in short the `MACT') were dismissed. It is the case of the
claimants who filed a Claim
Petition under
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short the `Act') that because
of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle i.e. UP.07-F-4885
the vehicle fell into a ditch resulting in the death of three persons namely,
Sohan Singh, Uttam Singh and a boy Rakesh Singh aged about 12 years. The
dependants of the deceased filed three Claim Petitions for compensation. The
appellant-Oriental Insurance Company took the stand the accident occurred due
to mechanical failure of the vehicle and in any event the insurance company had
no liability as the offending vehicle was being driven in violation of the
terms and conditions of the policy and the driver of the offending vehicle did
not have a valid driving license. The
MACT took the view
that the policy was operative for a period from
5.7.1999 to 4.7.2000
and since the accident occurred on 13.4.2000 it was
within the validity
period. The MACT also noticed that the driver's license
was valid during the
period of time when the accident occurred. The MACT
and the High Court
held that the vehicle was the subject matter of insurance for goods as well as
for passengers, though it was a goods commercial
vehicle. MACT did not
accept the stand of the appellant-Insurance company
holding that no
premium was paid for any passenger. The High Court also accepted the said view.
3. In support of the
appeals, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the original records
produced by the insurance company clearly show that no premium was received in
respect of any non fare paying non employees. It was the stand of learned
counsel for the appellant that both
the MACT and the High
Court erroneously held that the premiums were
paid for the goods as
well as for the passengers. In fact no premium was paid for passengers as
admittedly the vehicle was a goods commercial vehicle. The appeal survives in
respect of respondent No.9. The details of premium paid by the owner have been
indicated in the policy that the following amounts were paid:
Third party liability
Rs.2,779.00 Third Party Property Damage Rs. 75.00 NFPE Rs. 50.00 Driver Rs.
15.00 Coolie Rs. 15.00
4. The MACT and the
High Court appear to have proceeded on erroneous premises that the premium was
also paid in respect of goods and passengers. In the aforesaid circumstances we
think it appropriate to remit 3
the matter to the
MACT to consider the original documents relating to
payment of premium
which have been summarized in the paper book the amount of premium paid, and
determine the person from whom the recovery is to be made. Without expressing
any opinion on the merits, we remit the matter to MACT for taking a decision.
It shall permit the appellant to produce such material or evidence which
according to it has relevance.
4. The appeals are
allowed to the aforesaid extent.
...........................................J.
(Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)
..........................................J.
Back
