In Regional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Patna vs. Rita Devi & Ors. (2025), Justice Jitendra Kumar of Patna High Court delivered a 11-page long judgement dated December 16, 2025 wherein it considered whether pick up van bearing registration No. BHR-1AS-2166 was involved in the Motor Accident resulting into death of the deceased/Asharfi Roy and the vehicle was insured by the Appellant/Insurance Company.
This miscellaneous appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act was preferred against the judgment/Award dated September 22, 2017, passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge-VIII-cum-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patna, in Claim Case No. 3349 of 2014, whereby Tribunal directed the Insurance Company, who is Appellant herein, to pay Rs.7,32,000/- to the claimants, who are Respondent Nos. 1 to 7, towards compensation with interest @7% per annum.
This Claim Case bearing No. 3349 of 2014 was filed against the driver, owner and Insurance Company of the offending vehicle bearing Registration No. BHR-1AS-2166. The claimants are wife, mother, sons and daughters of the deceased/Ashrafi Rai.
As per the claim petition, the deceased/Asharfi Ray was coming to home from Barh in a tempo on 31.01.2014 along with his relatives. When the Tempo reached near village -Dahaur, one Pick Up Van bearing Registration No. BHR-1AS-2166, being driven rashly and negligently, hit the Tempo, resulting into grievous injury to Asharfi Ray, who died in course of the treatment. Subsequently, Barh P.S. Case No. 36 of 2014 was lodged against the driver of the Pick Up Van and after investigation, charge-sheet was also filed against the driver. At the time of the accident, the Pick Up Van was insured by Oriental Insurance Company, who is the Appellant. Despite notice, the driver and owner of the vehicle, who were O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 before the Tribunal, did not appear before the Tribunal and hence, they were proceeded ex-parte. However, the Insurance Company appeared before the Tribunal and filed its written statement contesting the claim petition of the claimants. However, Insurance Company did not denied that the offending vehicle in question, as claimed by the claimants, was insured by it. However, Insurance Company pleaded that the claimants had not valid cause of action, that the claim petition was barred by principle of estoppel, waiver and acquiescence, that the claim petition was bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of the necessary party, that the deceased himself was guilty and he was driving the said Tempo without having driving license, that the age, income and health condition of the deceased eas not admitted, that the claimed compensation was excessive, that the driver of the Pick Up Van was not having driving license and there was no valid permit to the Pick Up Van at the time of the accident and hence, it is the driver and owner of the Pick Up Van who are liable to pay the compensation.
The following issues were framed by Tribunal :
(i) Whether the claim petition was maintainable?
(ii) Whether Asharfi Ray died on 30.01.2014 on account of negligent driving of Pick Up Van bearing Registration No. BHR-1AS-2166?
(iii) What was the monthly income of the deceased?
(iv) Whether the Opposite Parties are liable to pay compensation to the claimants?
(v) Whether the Insurance Company has right to recovery?
(vi) Whether the claimants are entitled to get compensation?
Justice Kumar concluded:"20. As per pleadings of the Claimants/Respondent Nos. 1 to 7 and their evidence, it clearly transpires that the deceased/Asharfi Roy was travelling in the Tempo along with his relatives, including C.W.-2, Dhiraj Kumar, which was hit by pick-up van bearing registration No. BHR-1AS-2166, coming from the opposite side which resulted into serious injury to Asharfi Roy who ultimately died in course of treatment."
He observed: "I also find that at the time of accident, the pick-up van was not bearing registration number. It appears that it had been just plying on the road coming out from the Show-Room after temporary Registration and Insurance of the vehicle. I also gind that as per pleadings and evidence of the Claimants on record, it is found that after accident, the pick-up van was intercepted by the local people and seized by the Police and FIR was lodged against driver of Pick Up Van without carrying any registration number. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the driver of the Pick Up Van. As such, I find that the Claimants have discharged yheir onus to prove the involvement of the vehicle and the insurance of the same by the Insurance Company who is thr Appellant. Thereafter, it was for Insurance Company to rebut such evidence adduced on behalf of the Claimants, but Insurance Company did not even take such plea in the written statement in regard to the non-involvement of the vehicle and non-insurance of the vehicle by it, nor even Claimants’ witnesses have been cross-examined on this point by the Appellant/Insurance Company. In fact, the Appellant should have not only made pleadings to such effect, but even some official witnesses were required to be examined on such points, including even Police Officers, if required. But nothing of the sort has been done by the Insurance Company during trial before learned Tribunal. At this stage, raising new facts and circumstances can not be permitted."
Justice Kumar observed:"Hence, I find that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment/award. 24. Accordingly, the Appeal is dismissed directing the Appellant to pay compensation amount in terms of the impugned judgment/award within two months, failing which, the Appellant/Insurance Company will be liable to pay penal interest @ 12%. The Statutory amount of Rs. 25,000/- deposited by the Sppellant be returned to the Appellant."
No comments:
Post a Comment