Case Note & Summary
The appeal arises from a judgment and award dated 19.9.2003 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhandara, in Claim Petition No. 42 of 2001. The respondent no. 1, Maroti s/o Laxman Ukey, boarded a Tempo Trax (jeep) bearing registration No. MH-31/H-9518 on 30.10.1998 for going to Dongargarh from Nagalwadi. The jeep belonged to respondent no. 2, J.D. Kumbhalkar, and was insured with the appellant, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. The jeep was driven by one Ashok Giripunje. At about 4:00 a.m., near village Shaheepur on National Highway No. 6, the jeep rammed into the back side of a stationary truck. Respondent no. 1 suffered severe injuries and was treated at Rural Hospital, Deori and subsequently at Govt. Medical College and Hospital, Nagpur, resulting in permanent disability. He filed a claim petition against respondent no. 2 and the appellant claiming compensation of Rs. 1,00,000. The Tribunal partly allowed the claim, granting compensation of Rs. 57,315/- with interest, to be paid by the appellant and respondent no. 2. The appellant appealed, contending that respondent no. 1 was a gratuitous passenger not covered under the insurance policy. The court framed two issues: whether the appellant proved breach of policy conditions, and what order. The appellant argued that evidence showed respondent no. 1 was neither a friend nor relative of respondent no. 2 and was a fare-paying or gratuitous passenger, not covered under the policy. The court examined the insurance policy (Ex.58) which covered only the owner and his employees. However, the court noted that the appellant did not lead any evidence to prove that the vehicle was used for hire or reward or that the driver was not authorized. The burden to prove breach of policy conditions lies on the insurer. Since the appellant failed to discharge this burden, the court held that the appellant was liable to pay compensation. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Motor Accident Claims - Gratuitous Passenger - Insurance Policy - The appellant-insurer contended that the injured respondent no. 1 was a gratuitous passenger not covered under the insurance policy. The court examined the evidence and found that the policy covered only the owner and his employees, not passengers. However, the court held that the insurer failed to prove that the vehicle was being used in breach of policy conditions as the driver had a valid license and the vehicle was not used for hire or reward. The insurer was held liable to pay compensation. (Paras 4-8) B) Motor Accident Claims - Liability of Insurer - Breach of Policy Conditions - The court held that the burden to prove breach of policy conditions lies on the insurer. In this case, the insurer did not lead any evidence to show that the vehicle was used for hire or reward or that the driver was not authorized. Therefore, the insurer could not avoid liability. (Paras 5-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant-insurer had proved that the jeep was being plied in breach of the conditions of insurance policy, and if yes, whether the appellant could be held liable to pay compensation?
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Insurance policy
- gratuitous passenger
- breach of policy conditions
- liability of insurer
- Motor Vehicles Act
- 1988
