While questioning the purpose of keeping money in fixed deposits in banks , the Allahabad HC directs Tribunal to disburse entire claim amount to claimant's account
The Allahabad High Court recently comprising the Division Bench of Justice Dr Kaushal Jayendra Thaker and Justice Ajit Singh allowed the appeal of the claimants in a motor vehicle accident claim while dismissing the appeal of the insurance company.
“The factual data as it emerges from the record is that the claimants are the legal heirs namely widow and parents of the deceased who died in the vehicular accident which occurred on 2.8.2015. Till penning of this judgment, it has not been brought on record whether the widow who has now in dispute with her in-laws after the decision of the Tribunal, has remarried or not? Therefore, we go on the premise that she continues to be the widow of the deceased.”- stated the appeal.
It is also known that the deceased was earning Rs 25,00,000 and claimants claimed a sum of Rs 3,40,50,000. The Respondent’s truck was being driven by one Afzal Sekh and was insured with National Insurance Company Limited who had been saddled with the liability to make good the amount of compensation and due to the rash and negligent driving the motorcycle of the deceased was dashed by the truck.
Insurance Company challenged the award on the grounds that the deceased was a contributor to the accident having taken place, that income considered by the Tribunal was on the higher side and the same would not have been made the basis of compensation.
To this the Claimants felt aggrieved as the tribunal did not consider the amount for future loss of income and did not even grant proper interest. Tribunal also erred in directing 2/3rd of the compensation to be paid to the parents and 1/3rd to the widow.
“The claimants tried to prove negligence as is required under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) by leading evidence and on relying upon documentary evidence produced. The vehicle being insured with National Insurance Co. Ltd. was sought to be proved by documents filed by the owner of the said vehicle who had filed reply and driving license of the driver as 17C-1/6. Very strangely the Insurance Company filed document showing that the driver was not authorized to drive the transport vehicle and the said licence had expired but did not produce any such documentary evidence so as to convincingly prove that the vehicle was being driven by a person who was unauthorized.”-stated the appeal.
The learned counsel for the claimants has submitted that, “the deceased was rightly not considered to be negligent as he was driving a smaller vehicle and while driving the said vehicle he had taken all care and caution. The driver of the truck has been righly held negligent and the finding of facts need not be upturned. The submission that P.W.2 was not an eye-witness is belied from the fact that his name has been shown in the F.I.R. and the Charge-sheet. The truck dashed the motorcycle from behind. The delay in F.I.R. was because of the fact that the deceased was in hospital, he had a young widow and parents who had come in trauma on hearing the said accident to their son and, therefore, the delay has been rightly not considered to be fatal.”
In the present set of facts and circumstances, the Bench referred to the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Md. Siddiqui v. National Insurance Co. Ltd (2020) as this judgment would come to the aid of the claimants as there was no colossal connection of the deceased having contributed to the accident.
Further while considering the issue of breach of policy condition under Section 149 of the Act the Bench relied to elaborately sift the documentary evidence on record and whether the owner had taken proper care and caution to see that the driver was authorised to drive the vehicle or not. The High Court opined that the Insurance Company’s contention that the driver was not holding valid and effective driving licence could not be accepted.
While considering the case of the Insurance Company, the bench needed to know that whether it can be said that the driver did not have valid driving licence?
Owner of the vehicle was satisfied, and it was proved that he had taken all care and caution that vehicle was being driven by a person who was authorised to drive the same which was even apparent from the fact that the owner had gone to the extent of producing evidence so as to bring home the fact that there was no breach of policy condition.Hence, it was held that no breach of policy conditions was committed.
“…the Insurance Company has also felt aggrieved and has challenged the compensation and has relied on the decisions of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.2836 of 2015 (Shashikala and others Vs. Gangalakshmamma and Anr.) decided on 23.3.2015, V. Subbalakshmi and others Vs. S. Lakshmi and Anr. (2008) 4 SCC 224 and Sangita Arya and others Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and others, (2020) 5 SCC 224.”
In view of the above, the appeals preferred by the claimants were partly allowed and the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company was dismissed. The Award and decree passed by the Tribunal stood modified. The respondents were jointly and severally liable to pay additional amount within a period of 12 weeks with interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of filing of the claim petition till the amount is deposited.
Further, it was added that while sitting in Single Bench of this Court, Dr Justice Kaushal Jayendra Thaker held that the Insurance Company should not deduct any amount under T.D.S in the case of Sudesna v. Hari Singh, F.A.F.O. No.23 of 2001, decided on 26.11.2020, which should be strictly adhered to.
Thus, the Court directed that on deposit of amount, Tribunal shall disburse the entire amount by way of account payee cheque or by way of RTGS to the account of the claimants.
Hence, appeals by claimants were partly allowed and the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company was dismissed.
Case title: National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Anuradha Kejriwal, First Appeal