Case Note & Summary
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. filed an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the judgment and award dated 15th July, 2008, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (North), Panaji, Goa in Claim Petition No. 77/2002. The appeal was limited to the ground that at the time of the accident on 22nd January, 2002, in which Dnyaneshwar S. Devidas (husband of respondent No.1 and father of respondents No.2 to 4) died, the truck involved was not insured with the appellant. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had framed issues and answered them in the affirmative, holding that the accident occurred due to the fault of respondent No.1 (the driver) and that the claimants proved the death of the deceased. The Tribunal also held that the truck was insured with the appellant. The appellant-Insurance Company contended that the truck was not insured with it, but the High Court noted that the appellant failed to produce any evidence to show that the truck was insured with it or that the policy was not issued by it. The court observed that the appellant did not examine any witness or produce any document to discharge its burden. The court further noted that the other facets of the case were not required to be examined in view of the limited challenge. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant failed to prove that the truck was not insured with it at the time of the accident. The court upheld the Tribunal's finding that the truck was insured with the appellant and that the appellant was liable to pay compensation.
Headnote
A) Motor Vehicles Act - Insurance - Burden of Proof - Section 173 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - The insurer challenging its liability must prove that the vehicle was not insured with it at the time of the accident - The appellant-Insurance Company failed to produce any evidence to show that the truck was insured with it or that the policy was not issued by it - Held that the insurer cannot escape liability without discharging its burden (Paras 1-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant-Insurance Company has proved that the truck involved in the accident was not insured with it at the time of the accident.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The appellant-Insurance Company failed to prove that the truck was not insured with it. The judgment and award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is upheld.
Law Points
- Burden of proof on insurer to show vehicle was insured with it
- Section 173 Motor Vehicles Act
- 1988
- Limited challenge by insurer
- No need to examine other issues
Case Details
2014 LawText (BOM) (09) 126
First Appeal No. 311 of 2008
Mr. E. Afonso for appellant, Mr. J. Godinho for respondents No.1 to 4, Mr. S. D. Lotlikar, Senior Advocate with Ms. N. Patil for respondent No.6
The New Indian Assurance Co. Ltd.
Mrs. Sharada D. Devidas, Miss. Bhakti D. Devidas, Dattaprasad D. Devidas, Miss Shruti D. Devidas (minor), Santosh P. Naik Mandrekar (since deceased) represented by legal representatives Satish P. Naik Mandrekar, Sangeeta P. Naik Mandrekar, Varsha P. Naik Mandrekar, Minaxi P. Naik Mandrekar, M/s. Chowgule Company Ltd.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against judgment and award of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.
Remedy Sought
Appellant-Insurance Company sought to avoid liability by demonstrating that the truck involved in the accident was not insured with it.
Filing Reason
The Insurance Company challenged the Tribunal's finding that the truck was insured with it.
Previous Decisions
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (North), Panaji, Goa in Claim Petition No. 77/2002 awarded compensation holding that the truck was insured with the appellant.
Issues
Whether the appellant-Insurance Company has proved that the truck involved in the accident was not insured with it at the time of the accident.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that the truck was not insured with it at the time of the accident.
Respondents contended that the truck was insured with the appellant and the Tribunal correctly held so.
Ratio Decidendi
The insurer challenging its liability must prove that the vehicle was not insured with it at the time of the accident. Failure to produce any evidence to show non-insurance results in the insurer being held liable.
Judgment Excerpts
This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, by the appellant-Insurance Company, challenges judgment and award dated 15th July, 2008, delivered by the Presiding Office, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (North), Panaji, Goa in Claim Petition No. 77/2002.
The Insurance Company has filed this appeal only to demonstrate that at the time of the accident, in which husband of respondent No.1 and father of respondents No.2 to 4 expired on 22nd January, 2002, the truck involved therein was not insured with it.
Procedural History
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (North), Panaji, Goa passed judgment and award on 15th July, 2008 in Claim Petition No. 77/2002. The appellant-Insurance Company filed First Appeal No. 311 of 2008 under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the High Court of Bombay at Goa. The High Court heard the appeal and delivered judgment on 12th September, 2014.
Acts & Sections
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: 173
