Case Note & Summary
The case arises from a motor accident claim filed by the first respondent, Bhiwa Shidawa Wayada, under Section 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, for the death of his son Sudhakar in a truck accident. The truck was owned by the third respondent and driven by the second respondent. The appellant, Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd., was the alleged insurer. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thane, awarded compensation of Rs. 50,000 with 12% interest per annum. The appellant challenged the award, arguing that the truck was not insured with it, pointing to a cover note for a Rajdoot motorcycle, and that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger, which would be a breach of policy conditions. The first respondent opposed the appeal. The court examined the RTO certificate which showed the truck was insured with the appellant. The court held that the appellant failed to prove that the vehicle was not insured or that there was a breach of policy conditions. The appeal was dismissed, and the cross-objections were also dismissed as not pressed.
Headnote
A) Motor Vehicles Act - Motor Accident Claims - Insurer's Liability - Section 110A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 - The appellant insurer challenged an award of compensation on the ground that the truck was not insured with it and that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger. The court held that the RTO certificate proved insurance, and the insurer failed to prove breach of policy conditions. The appeal was dismissed. (Paras 1-5)
B) Evidence - Burden of Proof - Insurance Policy - The insurer contended that the policy related to a Rajdoot motorcycle, not the truck. However, the RTO certificate showed the truck was insured with the appellant. The court held that the insurer failed to discharge its burden of proving that the vehicle was not insured. (Paras 3-4)
C) Motor Vehicles Act - Gratuitous Passenger - Goods Vehicle - The tribunal found that the deceased were carrying goods in the truck for hire. The court noted that the insurer's argument that the deceased were gratuitous passengers was not accepted by the tribunal, and the insurer did not prove any breach of policy conditions. (Paras 2-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant insurer is liable to pay compensation when the vehicle was allegedly not insured with it, and whether the deceased being a gratuitous passenger in a goods vehicle absolves the insurer of liability.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The cross-objections are dismissed as not pressed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Motor accident claim
- insurer's liability
- breach of policy conditions
- burden of proof
- gratuitous passenger
- goods vehicle
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (01) 148
First Appeal No.280 of 1992 with Cross Objections Stamp No.14571 of 1992
Mrs. A.A. Agarwal for the Appellant, Shri T.J. Mendon for the Respondents
The Oriental Fire and General insurance Co. Ltd.
Shri Bhiwa Shidawa Wayada, Popal Shankar Mangare, Balkrishna Nana Bhoir
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Appeal against award of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
Remedy Sought
Appellant insurer sought to set aside the award of compensation
Filing Reason
Insurer challenged the award on grounds that the truck was not insured with it and that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger
Previous Decisions
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thane, awarded Rs. 50,000 with 12% interest per annum
Issues
Whether the appellant insurer is liable to pay compensation when the vehicle was allegedly not insured with it?
Whether the deceased being a gratuitous passenger in a goods vehicle absolves the insurer of liability?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that the office copy of the cover note shows the policy relates to a Rajdoot motorcycle, not the truck, and that the deceased were gratuitous passengers.
Respondent argued that the RTO certificate proves the truck was insured with the appellant and that the tribunal's findings are correct.
Ratio Decidendi
The insurer failed to prove that the vehicle was not insured with it, as the RTO certificate established insurance. The insurer also failed to prove any breach of policy conditions, such as the deceased being a gratuitous passenger. Therefore, the insurer is liable to pay compensation.
Judgment Excerpts
The Appellant Company which is the insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident has challenged an award made by the Learned Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thane, on a Claim Petition filed by the 1st Respondent under Section 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.
The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the deceased persons were carrying goods in the truck and they had hired the truck for carrying goods for a consideration.
The learned counsel appearing for the Appellant submitted that the office copy of the cover note was produced on record by the Appellant shows that the policy referred to in the RTO certificate relates to a Rajdoot Motor Vehicle.
The learned counsel appearing for the 1st Respondent opposed the Appeal and submitted that in fact a case is made out.
Procedural History
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thane, awarded compensation of Rs. 50,000 with 12% interest per annum. The appellant insurer filed First Appeal No.280 of 1992 challenging the award. The first respondent filed Cross Objections Stamp No.14571 of 1992. The appeal was heard and dismissed by the High Court on 19th January 2010.
Acts & Sections
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1939: Section 110A
