1 - Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Manager, Vyapar Vihar Road Bilaspur v. 1
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:18912 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Judgment reserved on: 06.02.2025 Judgment delivered on: 25.04.2025 MAC No. 865 of 2018 1 - Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Manager, Vyapar Vihar Road Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. Through Manager (Legal) Bajaj, Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd, Shiv Mohan Bhawan Vidhan Sabha Road Pandri Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ................(Insurer). ... Appellant versus 1 - Smt. Shalini Gupta, W/o Late Shri Mahesh Kumar Gupta, Aged About 32 Years, 2 - Advit Gupta, S/o Late Shri Mahesh Kumar Gupta, Aged About 9 Years,
Legal Reasoning
3 - Adya Gupta, D/o Late Shri Mahesh Kumar Gupta, Aged About 5 Years, 4 - Sarojni Gupta, W/o Shri Laxmi Prasad Gupta, Aged About 60 Years, 5 - Laxmi Prasad Gupta, S/o Late Sonuram Gupta, Aged About 65 Years, Respondents No. 2 and 3 are minors through their mother Smt. Shalini Gupta. All are R/o Mahesh Traders Main Road Takhatpur P.S. Takhatpur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2 6 - Santosh Kashi, S/o Shri Babulal, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village Pakariya P.S. Gourela District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. .............Driver. 7 - Bajrang Prasad Gupta, S/o Laxmi Prasad Gupta, Aged About 40 Years R/o Main Road Mahamaya Chowk Takhatpur, P.S. Takhatpur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ..............Owner. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant For Respondents No. 1 to 3 : : Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate Mr. Anand Kumar Gupta, Advocate Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey C A V Judgment 1. This appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, arises out of the award dated 23.01.2018 passed by learned III Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 682/2014 awarding a compensation of Rs.11,23,930/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization, fastening liability on the appellant/insurance company. 2. As per claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, on the date of accident i.e. on 19.05.2014, deceased Mahesh Kumar Gupta was going from Ratanpur to Takhatpur in Car bearing Registration No. CG 10 FA/3690 driven by non-applicant No. 1. The driver of the said vehicle i.e. non-applicant No. 1, while driving it very fast and carelessly, met with an accident near Khamhariya Deori due to which, Mahesh Prasad Gupta got severely injured and was immediately admitted to Apollo Hospital Bilaspur where he died during treatment. 3 The report of the said accident was lodged at Police Station- Takhatpur. After completion of investigation, a crime was registered and on finding evidence that non-applicant No. 1 had caused the accident by driving the vehicle rashly and negligently and due to which the deceased had died in the said accident, a charge sheet was filed against him under Sections 279, 337, 304A of the Indian Penal Code before the competent Court, which is pending against non-applicant No. 1. It is further pleaded that at the time of the accident, the deceased Mahesh Prasad Gupta was only 35 years old, he was the proprietor of Mahesh Traders and used to earn Rs. 3,02,576/- per annum and maintained the complainants. If the deceased had remained alive in future, his income would have definitely increased gradually because the gross income of the deceased in the Income Tax Assessment Year 2011-12 was Rs. 3,35,153/- which increased to Rs. 3,02,576/- in the Income Tax assessment year 2012-13. Therefore, in lieu of being deprived of the increased income, due to the increase in the future income of the deceased, the complainants demanded a sum of Rs. 35,00,000/-. After the accident, the deceased was admitted to Apollo Hospital Bilaspur where sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- was spent in his treatment. Therefore, total compensation of Rs. 78,10,232/- has been sought by the applicants under various heads. 3. Respondents No. 6 & 7/Non-applicants No. 1 and 2 remained ex-parte and did not file their written statements. 4. Non-applicant No. 3/insurance company filed its reply controverting the averments made in the claim petition and stated that no accident was 4 occurred due to insured vehicle by the non-applicant. Regarding clause 2 of the application form, the non-applicant has insured the offending vehicle bearing registration No. CG 10 FA 3690 in the name of non- applicant No. 2 under the Private Car Package Policy from 06.05.2014 to 05.05.2015. However, it is clarified that the policy will be accepted only after complying with Section 64VB of the Insurance Act. It is further stated that the vehicle in question was insured under a private car package policy but at the time of the accident, non-applicant No. 2 made the non-applicant No. 1 driving the vehicle, who did not have a valid driving license to drive the vehicle, which is a violation of the terms of the insurance policy. Apart from this, non-applicant No. 2 did not give any information about the accident to the insurance company. Therefore, the insurance company has no liability to pay compensation. The vehicle in question has been falsely involved in this accident and at the time of the accident, non-applicant No. 1 was neither riding nor driving the vehicle, rather non-applicant No. 2 was driving the said vehicle, regarding which he had informed the insurance company, on the basis of which his insurance claim has been rejected. The claim petition has been filed by the claimants and non-applicants Nos. 1 and 2 by concealing the true facts. Hence, it is requested to dismiss the claim petition filed by the applicants. 5. Based on the pleadings of the respective parties, the learned Tribunal after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record passed the impugned award as mentioned above. Hence, this appeal by the appellant/insurance company. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company submits that the 5 impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal is bad on facts as well as law. Learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate the claim form (Ex.D/3) submitted by the owner of the vehicle immediately after the accident and admitted that he himself was driving the vehicle, which can be considered authentic and genuine. Learned Tribunal has committed grave illegality in holding that non-applicant No. 1 was driving the offending vehicle only on the basis of FIR which has been lodged after 3 months from the accident, therefore learned Tribunal ought to have held that FIR and Final report are not reliable to ascertain that non-applicant No. 1 was driving the vehicle specially when owner himself admitted that he was driving the vehicle. The learned Tribunal did not appreciate the oral and documentary evidence properly. It is clear that the claim application filed under Section 166 of the M.V. Act by the applicants is not maintainable because applicants have not pleaded and proved the negligence of the driver who actually drive the car at the time of accident. Therefore, the impugned award is liable to be set aside. 7. Learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 5 strongly opposes the prayer of the appellant and submits that the learned Tribunal minutely appreciated oral and documentary evidence and rightly passed the award in favour of claimants/respondents No. 1 to 5. Therefore, this appeal being without any merit is liable to be dismissed. 8. Notice issued to respondent No.6 stands dispensed with as he was declared ex-parte before the Claims Tribunal whereas no one appeared on behalf of respondent No.7 despite service of notice. 6 9. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 10. It is clear from the record of learned Tribunal that on the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the issues and out of which, the important issue reads as under:- ्ቅ. वा(cid:3)द्ቚश्न 1. क्या(cid:3), द(cid:15)्ቈ(cid:12)टन(cid:3) निदन(cid:3)(cid:18)क 19.05.2014 क(cid:19) निनष्क्ቧ(cid:12) ह(cid:3)9 अन(cid:3)वा(cid:21)दक ्ቅ. 1 ቛኋ(cid:3)रा(cid:3) अन(cid:3)वा(cid:21)दक ्ቅ. 2 क(cid:21) स्वा(cid:3)नि(cid:25)त्वा(cid:3)धी(cid:28)न (cid:25)(cid:3)रूनि(cid:30) क(cid:3)रा ्ቅ. सी(cid:28).जी(cid:28). 10/एफ.ए. 3690 क(cid:19) ቇኋ(cid:3)(cid:25) खम्हरिराया(cid:3) द(cid:21)वारा(cid:28) क(cid:21) पा(cid:3)सी (cid:30)(cid:21)जी(cid:28) एवा(cid:18) ला(cid:3)पारावा(cid:3)ह(cid:28)पा*वा(cid:12)क चा(cid:3)लान करा द(cid:15)्ቈ(cid:12)टन(cid:3) क(cid:3)रिरा(cid:30) निकया(cid:3) जिजीसीक(cid:21) पारिराणा(cid:3)(cid:25) स्वारूपा वा(cid:3)हन (cid:25). बै0ठे(cid:21) (cid:25)ह(cid:21)श ्ቚसी(cid:3)द गु(cid:15)ኋ(cid:3) क5 (cid:25)6त्या(cid:15) क(cid:3)रिरा(cid:30) ह7ई? 11.Main objection of the appellant/insurance is that the FIR was registered against non-applicant No.1 after 3 months from the date of accident and the claim form (Ex.D/3) was submitted by the owner of the vehicle immediately after the accident admitting that he himself was driving the vehicle. However, it is clear from merg intimation (Ex.P/4) that after the accident which was occurred on 19.05.2014, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and he was admitted in hospital and during treatment he died on 20.05.2014. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against non-applicant No.1- Santosh Kashi under Section 304-A of IPC. 12. In his affidavit recorded under Order 18 Rule 4 of CPC, Om Gupta also supported the case of the claimants/applicants and stated that on the 7 date of accident i.e. on 19.05.2014 at about 4:00 a.m., the driver of car bearing registration No. CG-10/FA-3690 went to drop the deceased Mahesh Gupta. At about 7:00 a.m., he received information that the said car met with an accident and in the said accident, Mahesh Gupta sustained grievous injuries and he was taken to Apollo Hospital, Bilaspur, where he died. 13. Neeraj Gour, Law Officer who was examined before the Tribunal on behalf of Appellant/insurance company, objected on document (Ex.D/3). In his cross-examination, he admitted that the document (Ex.D/3) has not been filled in his presence and the same has been filled before the OD department of his office. In para 9 of his cross- examination, he admitted that since the insured person in this case has not violated any police conditions, his company has given OD claim. Further, he admitted that the vehicle in which the accident occurred can be driven by a valid license holder and if a valid license holder drives the vehicle and and an accident occurs, then the insured company is liable to pay compensation. 14. It is clear from record of learned Tribunal that driver- Santosh Kashi did not appear before the learned Tribunal and claimants filed certified copies of charge-sheet and other documents which prove that on the basis of merg intimation, investigation was carried out and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against driver- Santosh Kashi. Thus, it is proved that on the date of the accident, non- applicant No.1- Santosh Kashi was driving the vehicle. Learned Tribunal also minutely appreciated oral and documentary evidence and rightly decided the issue No.1 in favour of the claimants. This Court did 8 not find any illegality or irregularity in the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal. 15. In the result, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company, being without any substance is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) JUDGE Ruchi RUCHI YADAV Digitally signed by RUCHI YADAV